goffman's dual influence on charismatic leadership theories

GOFFMAN‟S DUAL INFLUENCE ON CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES 1

Goffman‟s Dual Influence on Charismatic Leadership Theories:

Dramaturgical Process and Frame Alignment Approaches

Jessica R. Dreistadt

LEAD 720 Leadership Theory and Practice

Eastern University

April 13, 2011


Goffman‟s Influence on Charismatic Leadership Theories

Introduction

Charismatic leadership tends to arouse an emotional response, even in scholarly

discussion. Charisma is associated with passion, enchantment, and social transformation. For

some, it teeters on danger. Charismatic leadership is wrought with implicit paradoxical

assumptions: it presupposes conflict yet offers hope of peaceful reconciliation; and the power of

an individual‟s compelling vision is dependent on an organizational apparatus in order to be

successful. Charismatic leaders have been responsible for great tragedies, as well as for

wonderful progress. For these reasons, charismatic leadership is a source of fascination for both

the general public and for academia.

Sociologists have shaped and advanced leadership scholars‟ understanding of societal,

organizational, interpersonal, and social psychological phenomena. Sociologist Erving Goffman

has been especially influential, particularly in the domains of social change organizations and

charismatic leadership. His theories of presentation of self (1959) and frame analysis (1974), in

conjunction with theories of impression management (Schlenker, 1980) and semiotics (Greimas

& Rastier, 1968) and many preceding conceptualizations of charismatic leadership, led to the two

approaches to charismatic leadership theory presented in this paper.

Fiol, Harris, and House (1999) use Goffman‟s theory of frame analysis (1974) as well as

Lewin‟s field theory (1954) and Greimas and Rastier‟s semiotic square (1968) to deconstruct

charismatic leaders‟ communication practices during three phases of the social transformation

process. Gardner and Avolio (1998) use Goffman‟s presentation of self (1959) to explain how

charismatic leaders intentionally interact with followers in dramatic ways to produce intended


organizational outcomes. Together, these theories broaden and deepen our understanding of

charismatic leadership‟s profound ability to inspire, mobilize, and transform.

A brief history of charismatic leadership theory, along with succinct descriptions of frame

analysis, presentation of self, impression management, field theory, and semiotics will be shared

to situate and provide a means to make sense of the two highly complex charismatic leadership

theories presented. The theories, though quite different in their scope and approach, are

complementary and when taken together offer a more comprehensive understanding of

charismatic leadership. A comparative analysis will illuminate the theories‟ similarities and

differences; suggested means of integrating the theories will be explored. The paper will

conclude with a proposed research agenda to further develop the field‟s understanding of a

Goffmanic approach to charismatic leadership.

The Evolution of Charismatic Leadership Theory

Charismatic leadership theory has been expressed in diverse iterations from biblical

through modern times. The theories vary in their academic discipline, assumptions, levels of

analysis, and definitions. A basic understanding of these theories will inform subsequent

discussion about the particular approaches to charismatic leadership under investigation.

Genesis

The concept of charismatic leadership was first recorded in the Bible. The Apostle Paul

used the word charisma, which derives from the Greek language, in two letters to describe the

gifts of, “prophecy, ruling, teaching, ministry, wisdom, and healing” (Conger and Kanungo, 1987,

p. 637). Examples of charismatic leadership are also found in the bible‟s stories. “Moses was one


of the first towering “charismatic” leaders (Burns, 1978, p. 241).

Weber

Sociologist and Political Scientist Max Weber shifted the analysis of charisma from

Judeo-Christian history to leadership and organizational studies (Bass, 2008, p. 575). According

to Weber (1964), charisma is one of three types of authority; the other two are traditional and

legal-rational. He identified charisma as an inherent trait that is “„awakened‟ or „tested,‟ it cannot

be „learned‟ or „taught‟” (p. 367). Components of Weber‟s conceptualization of charismatic

leadership include devotion to, and trust in, the leader; rejection of bureaucracy and economic

structure; and “a radical alteration of the central system of attitudes and directions of action

toward the different problems and structures of the „world‟” (p. 363). Followers are important in

Weber‟s theory; “the validity of charismatic authority rests entirely on recognition by those

subject to it” (p. 386). Weber believed that charismatic authority would eventually become

routinized in order to achieve individual or organizational stability, thus significantly changing

its nature. “Charismatic authority has a character specifically foreign to everyday routine

structures” (p. 363).

Post-Weberian Theories

There were many ambiguities in Weber‟s theory of charismatic leadership (Burns, 1978;

Conger and Kanungo, 1987). This opened the door for further theory development. Weber

influenced psychologists such as Freud and Fromm to study the inner life and behaviors of

charismatic leaders (Bass, 2008). Freud suggested that charismatic leaders influence followers in

two ways: “through his [sic] personality and through the idea for which he [sic] stands” (1955, p.

173). It was not until 1976, over 50 years after Weber first conceived of the charismatic leader,


that House developed a modern theory that would inspire a generation of progressively complex

thought in this area.

House’s 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. House developed the 1976 theory of

charismatic leadership as a supplement to his path-goal theory after being influenced by

McClelland‟s three needs theory (House, 1996). According to McClelland‟s theory, people are

motivated by achievement, affiliation, and power; “these motives are perceived as nonconscious

motivators that can be aroused by a select set of stimuli relevant to each motive” (House, 1996, p.

333). House‟s 1976 charismatic leadership theory considered how leaders “empower followers

and arouse motives to enhance intrinsic valences” (House, 1996, p. 334).

The theory defines charismatic leaders as those who “by force of their personal abilities

are capable of having profound and extraordinary effects on followers” (House, 1976, p. 1).

Charismatic leaders have four distinguishing characteristics: “dominance, self-confidence, need

for influence, and a strong conviction in the moral righteousness of his or her beliefs” (House,

1976, p. 25). There are also specific behaviors found in charismatic leaders: “goal articulation,

role modeling, personal image building, demonstration of confidence and high expectations for

followers, and motive arousal behaviors” (House, 1976, p. 25). Clearly, House articulated the

nature of charismatic leadership in more detail than Weber.

There is an acute imbalance of power in charismatic relationships, according to the 1976

theory. “The follower is inspired to enthusiastically give unquestioned obedience, loyalty,

commitment, and devotion to the leader and to the cause the leader represents” (House, 1976, p.

3). House‟s theory “shifted the focus of attention to a leader‟s symbolic and expressive behavior

and the emotional reactions of followers to the leader and the task” (Yukl, 1993, p. 368). Leaders


inspire change in followers and help them to be successful. They, “clarify followers‟ goals, cause

them to set or accept higher goals and have greater confidence in their ability to contribute to the

attainment of such goals” (House, 1976, p. 4). A strong connection to House‟s path-goal theory

can be seen here.

This groundbreaking paper made charismatic leadership accessible to leadership scholars

for further study (Bass, 2008). It “sought to explain charismatic leadership in terms of a set of

testable propositions involving observable processes” (Yukl, 1993, p. 367). In addition to

bringing this fascinating area to the attention of academia and operationalizing complex

phenomena, House also repositioned charismatic leadership as a dynamic theory rather than a

trait or “great man” approach. His theory was “an amalgam of trait, style, and situational theories

with a trace of the attribution approach” (Trice & Beyer, 1986, p. 132).

The theory did not adequately explain “the process by which these leaders are able to

influence followers profoundly and motivate them to transcend their own self-interest for the

sake of the organization” (Yukl, 1993, p. 368). This topic was explored in later studies of

charismatic leadership, including the two under analysis in this paper.

Subsequent theories and definitions. Shamir, House, and Arthur (1993) offer the “most

extensive revision” of House‟s 1976 theory (Yukl, 1993, p. 369). Their theory consists of seven

propositions about the nature of charismatic leaders‟ ability to motivate followers outside of the

purview of economic or a “highly idiosyncratic need-satisfying model” of human relations

(Shamir et al., p. 579). They define charismatic leaders as those who “transform the needs,

values, preferences and aspirations of followers from self-interests to collective interests” and

“cause followers to become highly committed to the leader's mission, to make significant


personal sacrifices in the interest of the mission, and to perform above and beyond the call of

duty” (Shamir, et al., p. 577). Leaders motivate followers through role modeling and frame

alignment (p. 584). The theory explains that by carefully controlling messaging and behaviors,

charismatic leaders can manipulate followers‟ level of commitment; followers‟ values and

identities are also salient (p. 588).

A few other theories of, and ideas about, charismatic leadership are germane to this

discussion. Trice & Beyer (1986) studied the routinization of charismatic leaders‟ messaging and

concluded that it should “find expression within the organization” through “the creation of a

viable culture around the charismatic message and mission” (p. 159). The charismatic‟s vision is

propagated through message dissemination with the content tightly controlled. Shamir (1991)

identified a host of charismatic leadership behaviors: “dynamism and energy; displays of self-

confidence; high commitment and motivation; setting and meeting high performance standards;

creative and innovative behavior; expressing goals and roles in ideological terms; showing

confidence in followers; and having high expectations of followers” (p. 82). In addition, he

identified a set of specific effects that charismatic leaders have on followers: “heightened

motivation; positive affect toward the leader and the task; self-assurance; job meaningfulness;

agreement and support for leader policies; trust in the leader; low role conflict and ambiguity;

and high performance quality” (p. 82). Bass (2008) defined charismatic leaders as those who

have, “extraordinary influence over their followers, who become imbued with moral inspiration

and purpose” (p. 576). Bass and Steidlmeier (1998) identify charisma as one of the components

of transformational leadership. Charisma can positively impact idealized influence, and this

materializes in leadership that is “envisioning, confident, and sets high standards for emulation”


(p. 187).

Pathology of Charismatic Leadership

Many charismatic leadership theorists are sensitive to the potential ethical malignancies

of charismatic leadership. Bass (2008) is particularly skeptical of charismatic leadership and the

possibility that it can cause harm. He offers an interesting alternative definition of charismatic

leaders that exemplifies this caution: “charismatic leaders often emerge in times of crises as

prospective saviors who by their magical endowments will fulfill the unmet emotional needs of

their completely trusting, overly dependent, and submissive followers” (p. 576). Not only does

Bass question the motives of charismatic leaders, he completely disempowers and disparages the

followers involved. Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) also implicate charismatic leaders as unethical

actors. “In general, they feel that they honestly know the right answers to problems which need

to be sold through effective impression management. Sometimes, they even deceive themselves

about their competencies.” (p. 187). Yet, Bass (2008) does not categorize all charismatic leaders

as unethical. He distinguishes between personalized and socialized charismatics. “Personalized

charismatic leaders are dominant, self-interested, and authoritarian” while “socialized

charismatic leaders are socially constructive, are egalitarian, and serve collective interests” (p.

578). Bass and Steidlmeier also categorize leaders according to their ethical practices. The

“authentic leader calls for universal brotherhood; the pseudo-transformational leader highlights

fictitious “we-they” differences in values and argues that “we” have inherently good values and

“they” do not” (p. 187).

There is merit to these concerns. Charismatic leaders have been responsible for

misunderstandings and hurt feelings, deeply entrenched conflict, widespread pain and suffering,


and even mass murder. Yet, charismatic leadership has also resulted in many positive social

changes. Goffman (1959) and Burns (1978) offer tempered dichotomies that recognize the

promise of charismatic leadership. These approaches to categorization may also be more realistic

in everyday practice where charismatic leaders do not necessarily take on the evil, larger than life

characteristics alluded to by Bass.

In The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959), Goffman also distinguished people

using two categories. A cynical performer, “may delude his [sic] audience for what he [sic]

considers to be their own good, or for the good of the community” whereas sincere performers

“believe in the impression fostered by their own performance” (p. 95). According to Goffman,

the human tendency to be cynical is moderated by the possibility of negative outcomes. “Many

performers have ample capacity and motive to misrepresent the facts; only shame, guilt, or fear

prevent them from doing so” (p. 103). People may be sincere in one role, but cynical in another;

they may move along the continuum throughout the course of a day. Individuals are not

generalized as “cynical” or “sincere” but rather take on these characteristics at any given time.

Burns (1978) distinguished social change leaders based on a tension between ideology and

personality; ethical considerations can come into play. In ideological leadership, the “relations of

leaders and led, and of one cause to a competing or threatening one, are ridden with conflict –

with actual or potential conflict inside the movement over specific strategies and goals, and with

constant conflict with opposing ideologies” (p. 248). In contrast, heroic leadership symbolizes a

“belief in leaders because of their personage alone” (p. 244). Unlike Bass, Burns did not

necessarily see these two types of leadership as being mutually exclusive. Rather, he felt that

they can and should coexist as complementary forces. “Most leaders combine both ideological


and charismatic qualities, and great leaders combine them creatively” (p. 251).

Additional Foundational Theories: A Brief Overview

The authors of the two charismatic leadership theories to be analyzed draw from a diverse

cadre of sociological, cognitive, and linguistic processes and theories. Closer examination of this

foundation will illuminate the unique nuances of each charismatic theory‟s meaning.

Frame Analysis

Frame analysis was introduced by Goffman (1974) to explain individuals‟ perception of

reality at any given period of time. Social life can be broken down into strips; each strip

represents “any arbitrary slice or cut from the stream of ongoing activity, including here

sequences of happenings, real or fictive, as seen from the perspective of those subjectively

involved in sustaining an interest in them” (Goffman, 1974, p. 155). A person‟s perspective of

what the strip represents and means relies upon a frame. The frame is influenced through the

processes of keying and fabrication, which attach meaning to occurrences through experience.

Thus, two people can have the same experience yet have very different perceptions of that

experience because of past history and meanings that have been attached to the various elements

contained in the strip. Frames “organize experience and guide action” (Snow, Rochford, Worden,

& Benford, 1986, p. 464).

Snow et al. (1986) expanded Goffman‟s theory and developed a four-step process for

changing frames in social movement organizations. In the first step, frame bridging, “two or

more ideologically congruent but structurally unconnected frames regarding a particular issue or

problem” are linked (p. 467). Frame amplification, which can relate to a belief or a value, is


“clarification and invigoration of an interpretive frame that bears on a particular issue, problem,

or set of events” (p. 469). Organizations expand their base of support in the next phase, frame

extension, through which they, “extend the boundaries of its primary framework so as to

encompass interests or point of view that are incidental to its primary objectives but of

considerable salience to potential adherents” (p. 472). In the final phase, frame transformation,

social movement actors see the world in a new way. This change can be either domain-specific or

global. In a domain-specific change, “a domain of life previously taken for granted is reframed

as problematic and in need of repair, or a domain seen as normative or acceptable is reframed as

an injustice that warrants change” (p. 474) whereas in a global change, “domain-specific

experiences…formerly bracketed and interpreted in one or more ways are now given new

meaning and rearranged, frequently in ways that previously were inconceivable, in accordance

with a new master frame” (p. 475).

Dramaturgical Process

Goffman (1959) suggested that individuals are performers who, like actors in a play,

assume various roles throughout their lives. Life is a series of performances. Performing

“concretizes ideas” (Benford & Hunt, 1992, p. 43) and communicates messages. These

performances take place within fixed settings; therefore, “those who would use a particular

setting as part of their performance cannot begin their act until they have brought themselves to

the appropriate place and must terminate their performance when they leave it” (Goffman, 1959,

p. 97). Appearance, which Goffman terms personal front, can be fixed or transitory. The personal

front is attached to the performer and includes “insignia of office or rank; clothing; sex, age, and

racial characteristics; size and looks; posture; speech patterns; facial expressions; bodily gestures”


(p. 98). Roles and identities can be intentionally constructed (Benford & Hunt).

The performer uses signs and symbols to convey complex messages that would otherwise

not be obvious. Meaning is manipulated to fit the audience; the “performance is “socialized,”

molded, and modified to fit into the understanding and expectations of the society in which it is

presented” (Goffman, 1959, p. 101). Audiences feel threatened when performers are dishonest

(Goffman, 1959). Performances are often strategically staged to improve organizational

effectiveness. This involves, “appropriating, managing and directing materials, audiences and

performing regions” as well as “the maintenance and expansion of an organization‟s capacity to

communicate their ideas… developing and manipulating symbols…promotion and publicity

activity…[and] audience segregation and backstage control” (Benford & Hunt, 1992, p. 43).

Scripts guide the content and timing of messaging. They serve as “interactionally

emergent guides for collective consciousness and action, guides that are circumspect enough to

provide behavioral cues when unanticipated events arise yet sufficiently flexible to allow for

improvisation” (Benford & Hunt, 1992, p. 38). Scripts are reflective of “ideas, attributions,

norms, values, beliefs and a universe of discourse” (Benford & Hunt, p. 39).

Perhaps Goffman was inspired by Shakespeare‟s As You Like It, in which Jaques states,

“All the world‟s a stage, And all the men and women merely players.” Charismatic leaders are

not merely players; they are social architects who strategically direct the setting, script, casting,

staging, audience, and performance to move the world closer toward their fantastic vision.

Field Theory

Introduced by Sociologist Kurt Lewin, field theory is a method of sociological


investigation characterized by “the use of a constructive rather than classificatory method; an

interest in the dynamic aspects of events; a psychological rather than physical approach; an

analysis which starts with the situation as a whole; [and] a distinction between systematic and

historical problems” (Lewin, 2008, p. 212). It emphasizes analysis of “causal relations and of

building scientific constructs” (Lewin, p. 201).

Field theory is time dependent; “any behavior or any other change in a psychological

field depends only upon the psychological field at that time” (Lewin, 2008, p. 201). Likewise, a

change in the physical world is dependent upon the situation at that particular point in time

(Lewin, p. 202). However, the present moment is influenced by the past and by the future. An

individual‟s “mood is deeply affected by his [sic] hopes and wishes and by his [sic] views of his

[sic] own past. The morale and happiness of an individual seem to depend more on what he [sic]

expects of the future than on the pleasantness or unpleasantness of the present situation” (Lewin,

p. 222).

Three of the four types of learning in field theory are relevant to a discussion about

charismatic leadership: “(1) learning as a change in cognitive structure (knowledge), (2) learning

as a change in motivation…(3) learning as a change in group belongingness or ideology” (Lewin,

2008, p. 216). Field theory suggests that “the major cause of resistance to social change lies in

individuals‟ beliefs in the value of existing social norms” (Fiol et al., 1999, p. 455). Changing

ideology is particularly difficult because of “the way in which needs and cognitive structure are

interwoven” (Lewin, p. 226). Learning takes place in multiple domains; “a change in cognitive

structure may occur in any part of the individual‟s life space, including the psychological

future … present, or…past. It may occur on the reality-level or on the irreality-level (wish- and


fear-level) of each of these sections of the life space” (Lewin, p. 228). Learning is not purely

intellectual, according to field theory; “cognitive structure is deeply influenced by the needs of

the individual, his valences, values, and hopes” (Lewin, p. 228).

Impression Management

Schlenker (1975) offered a theory of impression management as an alternative to

dissonance reduction. According to this theory, there is a positive relationship between leader

attractiveness and followers‟ willingness to conform to leaders‟ opinions. In addition, Schlenker

advises that “impression management tactics and normative behaviors should increase in

frequency in close correspondence with the attractiveness and power of the individual's audience”

(p. 101). Impression management is sometimes referred to as “image building” (Gardner &

Avolio, 1998, p. 32). While impression management is construed by some to be a manipulative

practice (i.e. Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999) it may be necessary for effective communication with

followers. Goffman (1959) recognized that as performers, people leave impressions and

awareness of the accuracy of those impressions determines the actor‟s sincerity. Charismatic

leaders are often on center stage; awareness and management of impressions heighten the

effectiveness of communications.

Semiotics

Semiotics is a three-step process for sense-making that builds upon Piaget‟s theory in

psychology and Klein‟s theory in mathematics (Gremais & Rastier, 1968); it is the “science of

signs” (Fiol et al., 1999, p. 456). The semiotic square starts with a concept in the upper left hand

corner and maps its contrary to the immediate right with the contradictions (non-concept) in the

diagonal quadrant below. The contradiction is “an absolute absence of meaning” while the


starting concept “describes the human world as a significant whole” (Gremais & Rastier, p. 86).

The semiotic square “can provide a theoretical starting point for identifying the components of

meaning of any set of values within a social system” (Fiol et al., p. 457).

Goffman’s Influence on Charismatic Leadership Theories: Two Approaches

The remainder of this paper will analyze two approaches to understanding charismatic

leadership through a Goffmanic lens. Fiol et al. (1999) expounded upon Goffman‟s study of

frame analysis by analyzing the communication strategies used during each phase of the social

transformation process while Gardner and Avolio (1998) used his dramaturgical process to

explain charismatic relationships and the context in which they occur.

Charismatic Leadership and Frame Alignment

Fiol et al. (1999) analyzed the speeches of the 14 United States presidents from the 20th

century to uncover the communication strategies they used to reframe the social agenda. This

study was based on frame analysis (Goffman, 1974), field theory (Lewin, 1954), and semiotics

(Gremais and Rastier, 1968). In accordance with field theory, which indicates that social

phenomena are dependent upon the situation at a particular time, three speeches from each

president were selected to correspond with the three phases of social change, from frame analysis:

frame breaking, frame moving, and frame re-alignment. The speeches selected were drawn from

the president‟s first year, middle of their term, and their final year in office to align with those

three phases of transformation. The content of the speeches was coded for inclusivity, domain

level, and use of the word „not.‟ Presidents were identified as charismatic or non-charismatic to

compare the practices of different types of leaders.


They found that, “charismatic leaders employ consistent communication strategies for

breaking down, moving, and re-aligning the norms of their followers” (Fiol et al., 1999, p. 450).

Charismatic leaders break down conventionally accepted social norms through the strategic use

of the word „not.‟ In the first phase, frame moving, the charismatic leader neutralizes desire and

fear and creates a “nondesire for convention” by “convincing society that conventional thinking

is not fruitful, but rather dysfunctional” (p. 459). Next, the leader moves the frame. In this phase,

leaders “move personal values from a neutral to a more active state, and social values from

opposing to conforming with the desired innovation” (p. 460). It is during this stage that the

word „not‟ is most often used, to “initiate the shift” by negating “the endorsed social norms that

are contrary to the innovation” (p. 460). Desire and fear are reactivated and repositioned toward

the social innovation. There is a double negation in this phase; “non-desire for convention must

be transformed into desire for convention, and non-fear of innovation into fear of non-innovation”

(p. 461). The final phase is frame re-aligning, or frame re-freezing. In this final phase, the desire

for innovation is realized by followers.

The authors identified two communications strategies used by charismatic leaders:

negation and inclusion/consensus building. Charismatic leaders use the word „not‟ as a

“rhetorical device for breaking, neutralizing and negating” (Fiol et al., 1999, p. 461). They

proposed that the word „not‟ would be used by charismatic leaders frequently during the first

phase of social transformation (frame breaking), most often during the middle phase (frame

moving), and less frequently during the final phase (frame re-alignment). Charismatic leaders

reinforce social transformation, particularly during the middle phase, through the use of inclusive

language and by expanding “the boundaries of their discourse by employing high levels of


abstraction” (p. 463). These techniques serve critical purposes; “inclusion explicitly invites

followers to engage and embrace the leader‟s values, while higher levels of abstraction open the

space for followers to align their personal values with those of the leader” (p. 463). These

rhetorical devices connect followers with the leader and the social transformation she or he

espouses.

Charismatic Leadership and Dramaturgical Process

Gardner and Avolio (1998) integrated Goffman‟s dramaturgical theory with Schlenker‟s

impression management theory (1975) to explore the dynamics of charismatic relationships and

the context in which those relationships occur. They assert that charismatic leaders are the

“epitome of drama” (Gardner and Avolio, p. 33); hence; the dramaturgical perspective seems a

serendipitous fit for an approach to analysis.

In the dramaturgical process, leaders and followers have a situated identity that is the

“operationalization of a person‟s identity at a given point in time” (Gardner and Avolio, 1998, p.

33). Identities are co-created through an interactive process. Followers, who in the dramaturgical

perspective are part of the audience, are “active players who work with the leader to construct his

or her charismatic identity” (p. 34). Followers are critical to the emergence and success of

charismatic leaders. Charismatic leaders consider the needs and values of followers, and these

“serve as core determinants of their idealized vision” that “subsumes a hierarchy of progressively

more specific goals that are applicable to various followers” (p. 39).

The authors consider the psychological makeup of the charismatic leader, which they label

self-system. The three components of the leader‟s self-system salient to the model are leader

identity, self-esteem, and self-monitoring. They propose that charismatic leaders are likely to


have high self-esteem, high self-monitoring skills, and a central leader identity. For leaders,

“identity image…of leader is a central and important of their theory of self…being a leader

serves one‟s social, achievement, and extrinsic needs” (p. 37). They further propose that

charismatic leaders are driven by power, which motivates their impression management tactics.

This desire is moderated by a “high level of activity inhibition” which encourages charismatic

leaders to “use their power in exemplary, self-sacrificing, and socially beneficial ways” (p. 38).

Charismatic leaders, according to this theory, use several dramaturgical strategies to

manage impressions: framing, scripting, casting, dialogue, direction, staging, performing,

exemplification, promotion, and facework. When framing, charismatic leaders “choose their

words to amplify audience values, stress its importance and efficacy, and, if necessary, denigrate

those who oppose it” (Gardner and Avolio, 1998, p. 41). Scripts, which can be prepared or

improvised, “coordinate and integrate activities” by moving “a step closer toward enactment by

casting roles, composing dialogue, and directing action” (p. 41). Through staging, charismatic

leaders “orchestrate their presentations to target audiences through verbal, nonverbal, artifactual,

and mass media to frame, script, and stage the charismatic performance” (p. 44). Many will

“manipulate their appearance for symbolic purposes” (p. 43). When performing, charismatic

leaders control images through exemplification and promotion. Through exemplification, they

“act in unconventional and counternormative ways to model new behaviors and deviate from the

status quo” (p. 44). Charismatic leaders promote themselves, their vision, and their organization.

Facework is used as a defensive technique when needed to “protect and repair desired self, vision,

and organizational images” (p. 47).

In this model, the psychology, values, and needs of followers are given significant attention.


The theory suggests that the importance of the individual identity of followers decreases with

increased involvement in the charismatic relationship. Followers, “come to increasingly identify

with the leader until their identities become intertwined with that of the leader and the collective

he or she represents” (Gardner and Avolio, 1998, p. 48). Similarly, followers‟ motives and values

are “realigned until they are congruent with the leader‟s vision and values” (p. 49). Nonetheless,

the authors propose that charismatic leaders will have a positive psychological impact on

followers. “The extreme confidence that charismatic leaders express in their own and followers‟

abilities…serves to elevate followers‟ self-esteem and self-efficacy expectations” (p. 49). As

opposed to charismatic leadership theories that assume followers are passive, such as those

supported by Bass (2008), Gardner and Avolio purport that support for the charismatic leader and

her or his cause expands through a social contagion process; therefore, the charismatic leader

may have many followers who have had little or no direct interaction with her or him. They

propose that charismatic relationships lead to a collective identity, which results in “team

performances and an elevated effort to achieve challenging goals” (p. 53). Therefore,

organizational outcomes are enhanced through the charismatic relationship and its impact on a

“shared vision and collective identity, coupled with strong follower commitment to the leader

and elevated effort” (p. 53). House‟s 1976 theory connected charismatic leadership to the

achievement of worker or team goals; this theory‟s consensus theory base amplifies its impact to

the organizational and even movement-wide level.

The dramaturgical model also considers the environment, which “serves as the backdrop,

setting, or stage for leaders and followers to construct the charismatic relationship” (Gardner and

Avolio, 1998, p. 35). The authors identify three environmental factors that impact relationships:


environmental turbulence, organizational context, and third-party audiences.

Comparative Analysis

In addition to utilizing different elements of Goffman‟s sociological theory, the presented

theories of charismatic leadership diverge in other important ways. These include the scope of

charismatic leadership encompassed in the theoretical models, the role of followers, power

dynamics, ethical considerations, and the use of words.

Charismatic Leadership Definition

Neither article explicitly defines charisma but builds upon decades of research and

discussion in this area. Both theories are based upon a social constructivist lens. Charisma is not

viewed as a trait; rather, charisma is treated as an active social phenomena that is co-created with

followers within particular environmental and/or cultural contexts. Charisma is not something

that a leader has; it is something that a leader uses or does with others. It is an experience shared

by leaders and followers – and perhaps other audiences. It is a vibe diffused in radical social

change organizations.

The nature of the dramaturgical perspective lends itself to a more holistic definition of

charismatic leadership than does the frame analysis model. In the dramaturgical perspective,

leader and follower values and beliefs, interactions, impressions, and the environment are all

influential. The focus of the frame analysis model on communication strategies is much more

specific; what it lacks in breadth it makes up for in depth.

The Role of Followers

The dramaturgical process theory (Gardner & Avolio, 1998) is quite egalitarian; it


recognizes the agency and values of followers. In the pictorial representation of the model, the

leader and the followers/audience occupy an equal amount of space and are shown on the same

hierarchical level. The charismatic leader is not just dependent upon followers for her or his

position and power; the leaders and follower co-create a vision and agenda for social

transformation resulting in a collective identity and group solidarity. This reciprocal relationship,

according to the model, is key to the organization‟s ability to achieve its goals. This aspect of the

theory is very unique from most models of charismatic leadership, which clearly differentiate the

leader from followers in terms of power and control.

The frame analysis model (Fiol et al., 1999) implies a more passive role for followers. In

this theory, followers are receivers and decoders of messages. The charismatic leader defines

innovation and uses rhetoric to break down old ways of thinking and build up a sense of

belongingness to the group that supports the new idea. The authors note that, in the social

transformation process, followers shift from thinking individualistically to thinking collectively;

however, the values of the collective are externally directed by the charismatic leader. The

backstory, the process of defining innovation prior to sharing it with the public, is unfortunately

outside the scope of this theoretical model.

Power Dynamics

While charismatic leaders may be situated in organizations working toward egalitarian

goals, their relationships are not necessarily so. Many charismatic leaders are dominant in their

relationships with followers (Bass, 2008); this line of thought was reflected by Fiol et al. (1999).

However, as Gardner and Avolio (1998) point out, charismatic relationships can be co-creational,

collaborative, and communal with both the leader and followers actively engaged in setting the


direction of the relationship and the vision for the organization or movement.

Ethics

Fiol et al. (1999) propose that followers‟ behavior becomes increasingly moral as it

becomes more collective; however, this relationship is not thoroughly explained. In order to

move frames, ideas about morality and normality must also shift. The authors do not discuss the

process of deciding, or discovering, what the frames ought to be; this is determined by the

charismatic leader. Thus, the model is patriarchal and has a greater potential to reflect unethical

practices. Outside of the three stages of moving frames, there is not a process built into the

theory to vet the validity of the charismatic leader‟s claims of what ought to be. Without

moderation or supplementation, implementation of this theoretical model could cause harm.

While its intent may have been to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, it may have practical

application. The model could be used by leaders who are otherwise ethical to effectuate positive

social changes.

Gardner and Avolio‟s theory (1998) is more ethically sound. Because the vision and

values are co-created through an interactive process, the charismatic leader is not dominating or

exploiting the relationship. The model‟s projected organizational outcomes of high internal

cohesion, value congruence, and performance potential all have ethical underpinnings. In this

theory, charismatic leaders desire to appear trustworthy, credible, and morally worthy.

Words

Both theories imply that charismatic leaders must be intentional about the specific words

they choose. Scripting, use of the word „not,‟ inclusive language, and abstract language are all


strategies used by charismatic leaders. Timing is also crucial. When engaged in the process of

social transformation, charismatic leaders must align their communication – and other –

strategies to the particular phase of the frame movement process.

While Fiol et al. (1999) specifically reviewed spoken words and Gardner and Avolio

(1998) discussed leader-follower interactions, printed words are also important. Printed words

may be circulated into perpetuity and will reach secondary audiences not immediately accessible

to the charismatic leaders.

Theoretical Integration, Synthesis, and Application

While the two theories analyzed offer distinct approaches to understanding charismatic

leadership, they are not necessarily incompatible. Each article has particular strengths that can be

leveraged by developing enhanced theoretical models that incorporate aspects of both. Through

integration of the theories, the understanding and impact of charismatic leadership can be

amplified.

The dramaturgical process (Gardner and Avolio, 1998) is a more comprehensive model

than the frame alignment theory (Fiol et al., 1999). However, the frame alignment theory adds

depth that can explain certain areas of the dramaturgical theory. Framing fits within the

dramaturgy model. “While framing provides actable ideas, scripting moves these ideas one step

closer to enactment. It casts roles, composes dialogue and directs action” (Benford & Hunt, 1992,

p. 39). The specific communication strategies developed in the frame alignment model can also

be placed within the dramaturgical model as an addition. This can help to explain how leaders

and followers communicate and develop their respective situated identities. In particular, the use

of inclusive and abstract language may lead to several elements of the charismatic relationship


identified in the dramaturgical model: collective identity, shared vision and values, and elevated

effort.

The dramaturgical process can also be applied to the frame alignment model to enhance its

efficacy. The frame alignment model would benefit from additional consideration for the needs,

desires, values, and beliefs of followers and other audience members. Currently, followers do not

actively co-create the vision in the frame alignment model but rather receive it from the

charismatic leader. The theory could be applied to see how charismatic leaders negotiate their

vision with followers within the dramaturgical charismatic relationship using the communication

techniques of inclusive and abstract language and the word „not‟ throughout the social

transformation process. This provides a broader context for the theory and expands it

applicability.

Proposed Research Agenda

Sustaining Energized Social Change

How can charisma be routinized so that it does not lose its essence? Some theorists (i.e.

Weber, 1964; Trice & Beyer, 1986) have suggested that charisma loses its character when it

becomes routinized. Yet, routinization or institutionalization of the charismatic vision is

necessary in order for the charismatic vision of social transformation to be sustained over time.

Perhaps it is possible for charismatic leaders to continue to infuse organizations with new ideas

and energy as they continually shift, re-align, and transform the social framework. Qualitative

research within social change organizations could uncover such dynamics.

Acting Charismatically


If charismatic leaders are actors, can non-charsimatic leaders act in charismatic ways?

Gardner and Avolio (1998) suggest that their framework can be used to develop leader coaching

and training. This again implies that charisma is not a trait, but (at least in part) an acquired,

transferrable skill or process that can be learned. While the dramaturgical process clearly

describes the charismatic relationship, it may be applied to non-charismatic leaders who wish to

benefit from the same organizational outcomes. Thus, training that is developed based on this

model might benefit all leaders. However, there may need to be other personal, relational, or

organizational factors in place in order for the training to be effective. Additional research could

identify such variables.

Communication Strategies

How should charismatic communication strategies vary according to situational contexts?

The theories explored discussed how communication strategies change according to follower

characteristics and stage in the social transformation process. There may be other important

factors to consider when developing communication strategies for charismatic leaders including

(perceived) leader distance, type of organization or social issue, size of audience, cultural or

gender differences, and political climate. These further refinements to communication strategies

may enhance effectiveness.

How do charismatic leaders communicate in less obvious ways and what is the impact on

impressions and organizational outcomes? In addition to the rhetorical devices shared by Fiol et

al. (1999), there may be other ways of communicating specific to charismatic leaders. These

might include inflection and intonation, volume of voice, posture, gestures, dramatic pauses, eye

contact, or clothing. Developing a better understanding of these, and their impact on audience


perceptions, can help charismatic leaders manage impressions and improve organizational and

movement outcomes.

Sincere Charismatic Leadership

Can charismatic leaders truly be sincere? There is much discussion in the academic

literature about the ethics of charismatic leadership; in particular, charismatic leaders. Using

Goffman‟s conceptualization of sincere and cynical performers (1959), researchers could

investigate charismatic leaders‟ feelings about their impressions to determine the level of

synchronicity between their underlying intentions and actions. This information could be used as

feedback to help charismatic leaders better align impressions with their values and intentions to

improve relationships with followers and other audiences; thus enhancing organizational and

movement outcomes.

Conclusion

Charismatic leadership theories offer compelling insight into the process of social

transformation. With a strong foundation in sociology, theories that build upon Erving Goffman‟s

theories of the presentation of self and frame analysis expand the contextualization of charisma

from a static inherent trait to a dynamic socially constructed relationship.

Gardner and Avolio (1998) and Fiol et al. (1999) have offered different, yet complementary

approaches to applying Goffman‟s sociological theories (1959, 1974) to the study of charismatic

leadership. Both expand our understanding of charismatic leadership processes; most

significantly, verbal communication and impression management.

Charismatic leaders are change makers, for better or for worse. By understanding the


tactics, strategies, and processes they employ, we can be guarded against those personalized

charismatic leaders (Bass, 2008) who might take advantage of us for their own personal benefit

and be better prepared to engage and collaborate with those socialized charismatic leaders (Bass,

2008) who are genuinely interested in benefiting society. Charismatic leadership is truly a “gift”

and knowledge empowers us to be its stewards.


References

Bass, B. (2008). Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, & managerial implications.

(4th edition), New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational

leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181-217.

Benford, R. & Hunt, S. (1992). Dramaturgy and social movements: The social construction and

communication of power. Sociological Inquiry, 62(1): 36-55.

Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Conger, J. & Kanungo, R. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in

organizational settings. Academy of Management Review. 12(4): 637-647.

Fiol, C. , Harris, D., & House, R. (1999). Charismatic leadership: Strategies for effecting social

change. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(3) 449-482.

Freud, S. (1955). Moses and monotheism. New York: Vintage.

Gardner, W. & Avolio, B. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective.

Academy of Management Review, 22(1) 32-58.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. In Lemert, C. & Branaman, A.

(Eds.). The Goffman reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. In Lemert, C.

& Branaman, A. (Eds.). The Goffman reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Gremais, A. J. and Rastier, F. (1968). The Interaction of semiotic constraints. Yale French Studies,

41, 86-105.

House, R. (1976). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. Working paper presented at the

Southern Illinois University Fourth Biennial Leadership Symposium, Carbondale, IL.

House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory.

The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323-352.

Lewin, K. (2008). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. 7th Ed. Cartwright,

D., Ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. (Original work published

1951).

Schlenker, B. (1975). Liking for a group following an initiation: Impression management or

dissonance reduction? Sociometry, 38(1), 99-118.


Shakespeare, W. (1623). As you like it. Retrieved from http://shakespeare.mit.edu/asyoulikeit.

Shamir, B. (1991) The charismatic relationship: Alternative explanations and predictions. The

Leadership Quarterly, 2(2), 81-104.

Shamir, B., House, R. & Arthur, M. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A

self-concept based on theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577-594.

Snow, D. A., E. B. Rochford, E. B., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame alignment

processes, micromobilization and movement participation. American Sociological Review,

51 (4), 464-481

Trice, H. & Beyer, J. (1986). Charisma and its routinization in two social movement

organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8(1), 113-164.

Weber, M. (1964). The theory of social and economic organization. (A.M. Henderson, T. Parsons

(Trans.), & T. Parsons (Ed.)), New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1922).

Yukl, G. (1993). A retrospective on House‟s 1976 theory of charismatic leadership and recent

revisions. The Leadership Quarterly, 4(3), 367-373.

goffman's dual influence on charismatic leadership theories

Documents