CHAPTER 18

Charisma motivates. Look at the 2008 election. Obama’s charisma first propelled him to his party’s candidacy over Hillary Clinton, who was considered a shoo in, despite the fact that Obama was a one-term senator and had limited national experience, and despite Clinton’s senatorial experience, name recognition, and contacts. One formerly doubtful television reporter came away from one of Obama’s early campaign rallies and gushed on national TV, “I’ve been Obamaized!” The same charisma overwhelmed the much respected but less charismatic John McCain, and helped Obama claim nine million newly registered Democratic voters who ultimately helped him win the election.¹

Perhaps because of his experience with Nazism in Europe, Drucker did not acknowledge charisma as a quality a leader could or should develop, in fact he pointed to successful leaders who lacked charisma, although not everyone agreed with his assessment. Drucker contrasted General George Marshall and President Truman with John F. Kennedy, who, he said, may have been the most charismatic person ever to occupy the White House. “Yet,” he went on, “few presidents got as little done.”²

Probably the only president to rival Kennedy for charisma in modern times was Ronald Reagan. However, in one of Peter’s last interviews, he spoke first about Truman and his effectiveness, and then said, “The other effective president of the last 100 years was Ronald Reagan. His great strength was not charisma, as is commonly thought, but that he knew exactly what he could do and what he could not do.”³

Even at this late stage of his life, Drucker was not a fan of charisma, despite its known power to motivate. He wrote, “Indeed, charisma becomes the undoing of leaders. It makes them inflexible, convinced of their own infallibility, unable to change.”⁴ Yet in writing about what effective managers should do, Drucker provided a description that closely parallels many of the actions of charismatic leaders.

Drucker was well aware that research counted charisma an important part of transformational leadership. Transformational leadership is based on aspirations of leader and follower, as opposed to transactional leadership, which is based on authority, and a form of Theory X.

Was Drucker Right?

If Drucker is taken at his word, all leaders should avoid charisma like the plague, and maybe even worry a little if anyone compliments them on being charismatic. Certainly Drucker was right in believing that some very effective leaders are in no way “charismatic,” and that some charismatic leaders leave much to be desired when it comes to either ethics or performance. Nonetheless, Drucker recommended aspects of charisma without connecting them directly to that particular quality. In this chapter, I focus on those aspects of charisma that Drucker, without using the term, recommended to leaders.

Charisma Defined

The ancient Greeks defined charisma as a gift from the gods. Modern definitions allude to a personal leadership quality involving personal magnetism that permits leaders to arouse fervent popular devotion and enthusiasm. Both qualities tend to motivate workers toward high performance.

Charisma can influence and arouse enthusiasm in others. In one study involving more than two hundred subjects in a competition to identify future scientists, British professor Richard Wiseman found that competitors who scored highest in their ability to convey their emotions to others also progressed furthest in the competition, independent of prior accomplishments or the extent of their education.⁵ As it turns out, the ability to convey emotions is an important component of charisma.

For several years, I was on the Academic Advisory Board of Vector Marketing, Inc., which sells high quality cutlery under the brand name Cutco. One of the company’s divisions, K-bar, made the original and world-famous Marine Corps k-bar knife during World War II. Most of Vector’s sales force consists of students working part time.

A charismatic young student, Zach Lutsky, put himself through college as a Vector salesperson. Lutsky wanted to go to medical school after graduation. Unfortunately, outside work and good grades do not always go together, and his school counselor told him that he didn’t have sufficiently high grades. Zach applied anyway. After being rejected by the medical school of his choice, he called the dean to ask if he could fly to Chicago from California for a face to face interview. The dean reluctantly granted the interview, stating tactfully that she didn’t think he would be able to enter medical school with his grades—there were just so many openings, and it was just too competitive. Zach convinced the dean to meet with him anyway.

During the interview, Zach explained that he had to work to put himself through college, and showed the dean his sales record. The dean was impressed, probably, as in the future scientist study, as much with Zach’s charisma as with his accomplishments. Of course, there were no openings. The dean advised him to prepare himself further and to apply again the following year, although she still held out little hope. Zach returned to his home town in Thousand Oaks, California, and made plans to follow the dean’s advice. He was going to try again the following year. However, three days before medical school was to begin, he received a telegram from the dean’s office. At the last minute, a previously accepted student had canceled. Zach was told that if he could be there in three days, the spot was his. Charisma, combined with hard work, the right attitude, and a lot of luck can have an impact on influencing and motivating no matter how hopeless the situation might look.

The ancient view was that someone was either born with charisma or not. The modern view is quite different. There is considerable evidence that charisma is not something one is born with, although certainly one might have a predisposition to acquiring it. Ronald Riggio, an academic researcher, discovered that “charisma is not something given to a person. It is not an inherited or inborn quality. Charisma is something that develops over time.” Therefore, every leader could develop charisma. It is not a single characteristic or trait but an array of specific and powerful social skills employed either consciously or unconsciously by those considered by others to possess this quality.⁶

To show that charisma can be acquired, Riggio uses the example of none other than John Kennedy. As a young man, Kennedy and his friend Charles Spaulding visited Hollywood. Spaulding reported that Kennedy was so fascinated by the charisma displayed by the Hollywood stars they met that he became almost obsessed with their magnetism and strongly desired to acquire this quality.⁷ Kennedy intentionally set out to become more charismatic by observing and practicing the actions of the Hollywood actors he met and observed.

Are Charismatic Leaders “Misleaders”?

Some charismatic leaders clearly are “misleaders,” as Drucker maintained. Others follow these individuals only to learn of their folly when it is too late. Hitler and Stalin are probably the best known examples of misleaders in the last century, although others could be named in every field of endeavor. Even if the charismatic leader is not intrinsically evil, there can be problems.

Contrariwise, far more charismatic leaders take their organizations and followers down the right path. Many researchers agree that charisma can be extremely powerful in leading others not only to achieve successful results but also sometimes to accomplish the highly unlikely and nearly impossible. How else might one explain the successes of college dropouts Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Steven Spielberg? Not that being a college dropout is required. The same might be said of the leadership of scientist Andy Grove at Intel, or lawyer Herb Kelleher at Southwest Airlines. History demonstrates that charisma can be an extremely positive motivational factor that should not be ignored.

Researching and Developing Charisma

Charisma researchers and writers generally approach the topic in one of three ways:

• They conduct experiments or observe the actions of charismatic and noncharismatic individuals to discover how charisma is applied.

• They conduct experiments or observe the actions of charismatic and noncharismatic individuals to discover the components of charisma.

• They conduct historical research, sometimes combined with observation of charismatic individuals in various settings, to determine what charismatics do.

Professor Wiseman, who led the study of new scientists, is a good example of the first approach. His research led him to recommend the following steps to those who would become more charismatic:

1. Maintain an open body posture with hands away from face when talking. Stand straight, but relaxed, hands apart and with palms forward or upward.

2. When dealing with individuals, let them know that they matter and that you enjoy being around them. Develop a genuine smile and nod when others talk, even briefly touching them on the upper arm. Maintain eye contact throughout.

3. When relating to a group, act comfortable in your leadership. Move around to appear enthusiastic while leaning slightly forward and looking at all parts of the group.

4. In your message, move beyond the status quo and strive to make a difference, being controversial, new, easy to understand, and counterintuitive.

5. In speaking, be clear, fluent, forceful, and articulate. Evoke imagery and speak with an upbeat tempo, but occasionally slow down for tension or emphasis.⁸

In contrast, Ronald Riggio took the second approach, and his research led him to recognize the significance of social skills. He identified six critical components of charisma:

• Emotional expressivity—the ability to express emotions

• Emotional sensitivity—the ability to feel the emotions of others

• Emotional control—the ability to control the outward display of inner emotions

• Social expressivity—the ability to express oneself

• Social sensitivity—understanding the social rules of the culture

• Social control—skill at role-playing

For each, he designed instruments to measure a leader’s “charisma quotient,” and then exercises the leader could practice to develop charisma and raise that quotient.⁹

Drucker took the third approach (“determine what charismatics do”), although he did not call it that. He noted that maximum effectiveness in dealing with others required definite attitudes and methods and cautioned that people were not simply machines to be managed without consideration of their human characteristics, motivations, and foibles.¹⁰ He pointed out that this interaction was a two way, not a one way, relationship.¹¹

Drucker showed that charisma is based on a leader’s reaction to individuals and their reaction to the leader in applying certain social skills, in certain ways, in dealing with others, and he told leaders, in his own way, what to do to develop charisma.

Drucker’s refined his ideas and recommendations. Different people have to be led differently.¹² Groups of people were each to be led differently.¹³ Though this may appear obvious, it is not. Neither is it new, yet some leadership experts emphasize that individuals must be treated identically.

Captain Adolph von Schell served in combat throughout World War I in the Imperial German Army. In the early 1930s, his thesis, Battle Leadership, written while attending the Advanced Class of the U.S. Infantry School at Ft. Benning, Georgia, on leadership psychology, shows the importance of knowing and understanding your subordinates and, as Drucker said, treating them differently. Wrote von Schell, “We must know the probable reaction of the individual and the means by which we can influence this reaction.”¹⁴

Drucker recommended that workers must be led differently at different times, again an important element of charisma.¹⁵ Von Schell wrote the same thing in his book sixty years earlier:

“It is comparatively easy to make a correct estimate if one knows the man concerned; but even then it is often difficult, because the man doesn’t always remain the same. He is no machine; he may react one way today, another way tomorrow. Soldiers can be brave one day and afraid the next. Soldiers are not machines but human beings who must be led in war. Each one of them reacts differently at different times, and must be handled each time according to his particular reaction. To sense this and to arrive at a correct psychological solution is part of the art of leadership.”¹⁶

Drucker wrote emphatically that money alone does not motivate performance. Speaking of knowledge workers, he wrote, “They need, above all, challenge. They need to know the organization’s mission and to believe in it.”¹⁷ In 1779 at the siege of Savannah during our Revolutionary War, Franco American forces faced heavy English fire. Colonel Arthur Dillon offered his men of the LXXX Infanterie of the Franco-American force a hundred guineas to the first man to plant a flag in the British position. Not one man came forward. The colonel grew angry, and called his men cowards. Then one of his subordinates, a sergeant major, couldn’t contain himself. “If you hadn’t offered money as an incentive, every man would have been willing to go,” he shouted angrily at his superior officer. So saying, the sergeant-major got in front of the group and led it himself, and to a man the LXXX Infanterie followed and advanced against the English fire, achieving the desired result.¹⁸

Drucker on Charisma as a Motivator

Though he did not say how to apply these actions, Peter recommended that the leader motivate by several actions clearly characteristic of a charismatic leader:

• Lead, don’t manage.

• Know who you are leading.

• Treat each individual differently depending on what motivates each.

• Treat groups differently depending on what motivates each.

• Lead individuals and groups differently, at different times, depending on the situation.

• Remember that those led need to know the organization’s mission and to believe in it.

Leaders should heed Drucker’s warning not to become misleaders, but charisma, whatever it is called, is useful as a component of Drucker’s requirement to lead and motivate workers to peak performance.