Charisma
Ronald E. Riggio
Kravis Leadership Institute
Claremont McKenna College
850 Columbia Avenue
Claremont, CA 91711
Ron.riggio@cmc.edu
(909) 607-2997
Keywords: Social skills, leadership, expressiveness, persuasion, impression formation, nonverbal
communication, emotional skills, emotional intelligence, social intelligence,
Cross References: Positive Psychology, Heroism, Leadership, Negotiation and Conflict Resolution,
Psychoanalysis, Nonverbal Communication, Emotional Regulation
Abstract
Charisma is a constellation of personal characteristics that causes an individual to be attractive to others
and to have impact on them. Charisma is the ability to inspire, to affect people at the emotional level,
and to lead a devoted following. Charisma is most often associated with charismatic leadership, but
personal charisma is related to well-developed emotional and social skills and can be possessed by
anyone. Research suggests that charisma plays an important role in social effectiveness, in leadership,
in interpersonal relationships, and in fostering psychosocial well-being.
CHARISMA, a widely discussed topic in the fields of psychology, leadership, political science, sociology,
and communication, is a very elusive construct. The term “charisma” itself means a “divine gift of
grace.” Yet, most modern researchers of charisma do not believe that charisma is an inherited, inborn
quality. Moreover, few psychologically oriented theorists would argue that charisma is something that is
bestowed on an individual. Instead, charisma is best approached as a constellation of personal
characteristics that cause an individual to have impact on others---to inspire them, lead them, influence
them, or in some other way affect their feelings and behaviors.
I.
INTRODUCTION
This chapter focuses on the construct of charisma from a psychological and mental health perspective.
From this orientation, charisma is defined as a constellation of basic communication and social skills.
Critical to the possession of personal charisma is skill in emotional communication, particularly
emotional expressiveness. Research suggests that charisma plays an important role in social
effectiveness, in leadership, in interpersonal relationships, and in fostering psychosocial well-being. By
improving communication and social skills one can enhance personal charisma and improve
interpersonal effectiveness.
II.
HISTORY AND THEORIES OF CHARISMA
The roots of the concept of charisma, and of charismatic leadership, are in religious writings. Religious
prophets, such as Moses or Mohammed, were said to possess special characteristics that allowed them
to captivate and inspire followers. Although it is unclear exactly what these characteristics consisted of,
religious charisma was often associated with magical or divine powers. For example, charismatic persons
were those who were believed to have the power to perform miracles, to foresee the future, or to heal
others.
Social scientists became seriously interested in charisma following the work of German
sociologist Max Weber (1947). Charismatic individuals, according to Weber, possessed some
“extraordinary quality” that captivated others. Drawing heavily on religious notions of charisma, Weber
believed that the key to a leader’s charisma lay in the relationship between the leader’s qualities and
the follower’s belief in and devotion to the charismatic leader. Weber’s conceptualization of charisma
provoked a great deal of interest by sociologists and political scientists into the charisma of notable
political and national leaders. To this day, Weber’s notion that a leader’s charisma lies in the leaderfollower relationship is quite popular and has influenced theories of general leadership and research on
leadership in the workplace.
Another theory of charisma and charismatic leadership is the psychoanalytic approach
championed by Irvine Schiffer and others (Schiffer, 1973; Kets de Vries, 1988). According to the
psychoanalytic theory of charisma, followers project their needs onto a chosen leader and imbue the
leader with great qualities, much in the same way that a young child might look up to and idolize a
parent. From the psychoanalytic approach, charisma lies more in the followers and their deeply rooted
psychological needs than in any particular qualities of the charismatic leader. The psychoanalytic
theorists do, however, point out that certain characteristics of the potential leader such as
attractiveness, an air of mystery, or some other quality that draws attention to the potential leader (e.g.,
a foreign accent, a physical flaw), allows certain individuals to be more likely candidates for charismatic
leadership. [See PSYCHOANALYSIS.]
Another theory of charisma, proposed by Charles Lindholm (1990), also emphasizes the role of
the follower in charisma. For Lindholm, there are a number of qualities that can make a leader
charismatic, but it is the followers’ reaction to the leader that constitutes charisma. According to
Lindholm, the masses of followers look to charismatic leaders as a means of escaping from their
mundane everyday existence. Like the psychoanalytic theorists, this approach emphasizes some sort of
deficiency in followers that motivates them to seek out persons who offer some sort of promise of
salvation, change, or a better life. Yet, the one element overlooked by all of these theories concerns the
qualities that allow only a certain few individuals to emerge as charismatic.
Leadership researcher Jay Conger (Conger, 1989; Conger & Kanungo, 1987) defines charisma as
a constellation of behavioral traits that induce perceptions of charisma in others. These behavioral traits
associated with charismatic leaders include the ability to detect unexploited opportunities, sensitivity to
followers’ needs, the ability to formulate and communicate visionary goals, the building of trust in
followers, and the ability to motivate followers to achieve the leader’s vision. According to Conger, the
likelihood of followers perceiving a leader as charismatic depends on the number of charismatic
behaviors the leader exhibits, the intensity of those behaviors, and the relevance of the behaviors to the
situation. While Conger’s notion of charisma emphasizes the behaviors emitted by charismatic leaders,
many of these behaviors are situationally based. That is, they are behaviors that center of the particular
leadership situation and on the relationship between the charismatic leader and followers.
Although these various theories of charisma are quite different, they contain common elements.
One common theme is the charismatic person’s ability to draw attention. Ability to communicate, to
capture the attention of potential followers, could constitute this attention-getting device. Also implicit
in the various charisma theories is the notion that charismatic individuals have the ability to “touch”
others at some deep, emotional level. Many of the theories also denote some sort of “attractiveness”
that draws others to the charismatic person. Finally, some charisma theories, such as the psychoanalytic
approach, and to a certain extent Weber’s conceptualization of charisma, also emphasize the “mystical”
or “mysterious” qualities that add to an individual’s charisma.
III.
AN EMOTIONAL AND SOCIAL SKILLS APPROACH TO UNDERSTANDING CHARISMA
In the 1980’s, in an effort to better understand the personal characteristics associated with charisma
and charismatic leadership, a new approach to charisma was developed that focused on the role that
emotional communication and social skills play in determining charisma. Rather than viewing charisma
solely from a leadership context, this new approach to charisma emphasized personal characteristics
that can cause any individual to appear to others to be “charismatic.” This approach focuses on an
individual’s “personal charisma,” rather than on any situationally determined charisma that might stem
from the relationship between leaders and followers (Friedman, Riggio & Casella, 1988; Riggio, 1986,
1987).
Personal charisma lies in an individual’s ability to communicate. From this perspective, charisma
is defined as a combination of highly developed basic communication and social skills. Although
charisma is a constellation of several types of communication skills, particularly important for charisma
are skills in emotional communication---the ability to express emotions, the ability to “read” the
emotions of others, and the ability to control one’s own emotional communication. Also important in
determining personal charisma are basic social skills, including verbal speaking skill, the ability to engage
others in conversation, knowledge of social norms, and the ability to adopt carious social roles. [See
EMOTIONAL REGULATION.]
There are three classes of basic communication skills that underlie charisma. These three classes
of skills are skills in sending (termed expressive skills), skills in receiving (referred to as skills in
sensitivity), and skills in regulation, or controlling, communication (Riggio, 1986, 1989). Furthermore,
these three basic classes of skill operate in two areas: in the domain of emotional communication, and
in the social domain. Thus, there are 6 basic social/communication skills: emotional expressivity,
emotional sensitivity, emotional control, social expressivity, social sensitivity, and social control.
Possession of high levels of each of these basic social/communication skills, without any
particular “imbalances” among the skill dimensions, is what, according to this model, constitutes
individual’s “charisma potential”. Research evidence indicates that such charismatic, socially skilled
individuals make more positive first impressions on others, are evaluated more favorably in social
interactions, are more likely to be viewed as leadership ‘material,’ have greater numbers of friends, have
greater social networks and receive more social support, and are better adjusted than persons who are
lacking in basic social/communication skills. Moreover, it seems that individuals who are exceptionally
high in basic communication skills are “qualitatively’ different from those who are low or moderate in
communication skills. Thus, it appears that the components of what is commonly labeled “charisma” are
highly developed social/communication skills.
A. Charisma, Emotions, and Nonverbal Communication
There is little doubt that an important component of charisma is the ability to
communicate emotions. Charismatic leaders, for example, are typically characterized by
their ability to arouse, inspire, or affect others at an emotional level. Early research of
charisma from the communication skill perspective focused on nonverbal emotional
expressiveness as the key element of charisma. It was found, for example, that
emotionally expressive persons made more favorable initial impressions, were better
liked, and that they were more likely to hold elected offices and jobs that involved
interacting with people than were individuals lacking in emotional expressiveness
(Friedman, Prince, Riggio, & DiMatteo, 1980; Riggio, 1986).
Emotional expressiveness involves the ability to nonverbally convey affect
through facial expression, gestures, and tone of voice. Nonverbal expressiveness may
also involve, however, the nonverbal communication of attitudes or projecting cues of
status and dominance. A great deal of research has shown that emotionally expressive
individuals are indeed more skilled senders, or encoders, of basic emotions such as
happiness, anger, fear, or sadness. Emotionally expressive people are also distinguished
by distinctive and frequent changes in their facial expressions and by variations in their
tone of voice. [See NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION.]
An interesting study demonstrated that charismatic individuals appear to use
their emotional expressiveness as a means for inspiring or influencing others (Friedman
& Riggio, 1981). This process, which is labeled “emotional contagion,” suggests that a
charismatic person uses emotional expressiveness to arouse emotions in others
(Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994). In fact, it is likely emotional expressiveness that
people associate with charismatic persons upon first meeting them. Charismatic persons
are characterized as being “emotionally charged’ and instantly able to ‘light up a room,”
reflecting emotional expressiveness.
Although a key element, emotional expressiveness alone does not constitute charisma. Persons
who are emotionally expressive may have an advantage in initial encounters, but if they are unable to
regulate their emotionally expressive behavior, the initial positive impression may wear off as these
individuals are viewed as emotionally “out of control.” Thus, control over emotional expression is
another important component of charisma. A charismatic leader, for example, needs to emotionally
inspire others, but it is not advantageous to always “wear one’s heart on one’s sleeve.” At times, it is
necessary to stifle the expression of felt emotions and to use another emotional expression as a mask. It
is skill in emotional control that allows a charismatic leader to continue to emotionally inspire followers
despite the fact that the leader may be personally experiencing some negative affect (Riggio, 1987).
Emotional control, combined with emotional expressiveness, is what makes charismatic
individuals superb emotional “actors.” That is, charismatic persons are able to successfully enact
emotions on cue, in order to influence or inspire others. A classic example of a charismatic leader’s
emotional acting occurred during the 1980 U.S. Presidential campaign, when then-candidate Ronald
Reagan met other Republican presidential candidate hopefuls for a televised debate in a New England
high school gymnasium. When the debate moderator tried to limit candidate Reagan’s speaking by
turning off his microphone, Reagan angrily leaped to his feet, grabbed the microphone, and exhorted,
I paid for this show. I’m paying for this microphone.” The crowd cheered, and the image of Reagan, the
indignant citizen-candidate defending his rights, seemed to have important impact on his campaign.
Later, it was learned that Reagan and his campaign advisors had planned to use just such a controlled
emotional outburst if the situation presented itself. As one political analyst noted, it was Ronald
Reagan’s “outburst of vivid yet controlled emotion” that helped him win the Republican nomination.
In addition to emotional expressiveness and control over emotions, a truly charismatic
individual must also possess the ability to recognize the emotional needs of others. The charismatic
leader, for example, must be able to read the emotions of the crowd of follower s in order to be
responsive to them. Some theories of work place leadership reflect this by emphasizing that an effective
leader must be “empathic.” Nearly all theories of charisma stress the requirement that a charismatic
leader be responsive to the needs of followers. Therefore, emotional sensitivity is another basic
component of charisma.
Studies of well-known charismatic leaders show evidence that emotional sensitivity is indeed
linked to a leader’s charisma (Riggio, 1987). For example, Martin Luther King Jr. and President John
Kennedy were both characterized as very good at reading the emotional needs of persons with whom
they interacted. Eleanor Roosevelt (herself a charismatic figure) characterized John Kennedy as “totally
intentive…” and a “superb listener.”
Skills in nonverbal and emotional communication are critically important components of
charisma. Emotional expressiveness is the one characteristic, however, that is most commonly
associated with charisma because of its “visibility.” It is the charismatic person’s expressiveness that
captures the attention and imagination of others. Yet, a truly charismatic individual must also be
emotionally sensitive---able to read the subtle nonverbal cues of others---and the charismatic person
must also be in control of his or her emotional and nonverbal messages.
B. Charisma and Social Skills
Skills in nonverbal/emotional communication are not the only components of charisma. True charisma
also involves well-developed verbal communication skills. There are three basic dimensions of social skill
that are elements of personal charisma. These are termed social expressivity, social sensitivity, and
social control. Although these social skill dimensions illustrate the charismatic individual’s ability to
communicate verbally, they are much broader constructs than their names imply, involving knowledge
of social norms and rules, social role-playing, and the ability to initiate and maintain social ties with
others.
The charisma component labeled social expressivity consists of verbal speaking skill and the
ability to engage others in social interaction. Social expressivity complements emotional expressiveness.
While emotional expressivity involves the spontaneous expression of feelings, social expressivity is
related to the spontaneous translation of thoughts into words and actions. Socially expressive persons
are “good talkers”---able to speak easily on just about any topic. One study found that charismatic U.S.
presidents were more likely to use metaphors in their speeches than non-charismatic presidents (Mio,
Riggio, Levin, & Reese, 2005). However, if the socially expressive individual lacks emotional expressivity,
the conversation will appear dull and lifeless, even though the dialogue might be interesting and
thought provoking. Most charismatic public figures are quite socially expressive since much of their
public personal involves speaking extemporaneously.
Social sensitivity is another charisma component that involves a complex social skill. Although
social sensitivity consists of one’s ability to decode and understand verbal messages, it is also strongly
related to the charismatic person’s knowledge of social rules and conventions. It is a skill in social
sensitivity that allows a charismatic person to “read” the demands of various social situations. While
social sensitivity is a critical skill for a charismatic individual, contributing to his or her ability to ability to
be sensitive to situational constraints and analyze social situations, social sensitivity is also related to an
individual’s sense of social anxiety. In other words, possession of high levels of social sensitivity, without
also being socially expressive and without possessing the third critical social skill of social control, can
lead to high levels of social anxiety and actually inhibit social performance. One way to look at social
sensitivity is that it is important to be socially aware---to be concerned about and cognizant of whether
one’s social behavior is appropriate and that one is adhering to social norms and conventions. However,
if an individual becomes overly sensitive to social situations, it can lead to social withdrawal. The
charismatic individual thus needs just the right amount of social sensitivity.
The third social skill component of charisma is labeled social control, but is more complex than
the name implies. Social control is basic social role playing skill/ Persons who possess high levels of social
control are good social actors, able to adopt a variety of social roles, and easily able to fit into any type
of social situation. Social control is the one basic communication skill that is most strongly related to
common conceptions of social competence. In part, it is social control that contributes to the confidence
exuded by charismatic individuals. The awareness that one has the ability to perform well in a variety of
social situations leads to the development of a form of social self-confidence, or social self-efficacy. The
importance of the skill of social control to role playing success was demonstrated in a study of soon-tobe college graduates who were participating in a mock hiring interview prior to the actual on-campus
interviews. Social control was found to be a good predictor of successful hiring interview performance as
judged by experienced evaluators. More recently, social control was a consistent predictor of
assessment center performance of individuals engaged in a variety of role playing situations, including
exercises requiring participants to engage in a leaderless group discussion, give a prepared speech, and
perform in a mock hiring interview. It is important to emphasize that charisma is the combination of the
three basic skills in emotional/nonverbal communication and the three skills in social/verbal
communication. Moreover, truly charismatic individuals possess high levels of each of these six basic
skill dimensions, while the levels of skill are relatively balanced. A good analogy to this emotional and
social skill conceptualization of charisma is found in theories of intelligence. Many models of intelligence
view it as multidimensional, with general intelligence composed of verbal skills, mathematic abilities,
analytical reasoning, and so on. While high levels of these various intelligence dimensions combine to
create a highly intelligent individual---a “genius”--- high levels of basic social/communication skills
combine to create a person who is “charismatic.”
IV.
CHARISMA AND SOCIAL EFFECTIVENESS
As has already been noted, charismatic individuals, because of their expressiveness, are particularly
effective at making positive first impressions on others. In fact, people will often make quick judgments
of another’s charisma from relatively brief initial encounters, from watching a prepared speech, or even
from brief television sound bites.
Another important aspect of the charismatic person’s social effectiveness apparently lies in the
ability of charismatic individuals to appear credible to others. In a study focusing on ability to deceive
and detect deception, participants were given the Social Skills Inventory to measure their social skills
and charisma potential weeks before they were scheduled to participate in a videotaped experiment
(Riggio, Tucker, & Throckmorton, 1987). At the earlier point, their attitudes on a wide variety of
sociopolitical topics were assessed. At the late date, participants had to make brief, prepared pro- or
counter-attitudinal speeches, along with some speeches on which their feelings were “neutral.” Ratings
were made on how much each participant “truly believed in what he or she was saying.” Although
charismatic individuals were not more successful at deception (defined as being judged truthful when
lying) than were non-charismatic participants, charismatic individuals were judged as more truthful
overall---regardless of whether they were truth-telling, deceiving, or felt neutral about the topic. This
tendency for individuals to appear honest/credible or deceptive regardless of what they are saying is
referred to as a “demeanor bias.” Charismatic persons simply look more honest than non-charismatic
persons.
Why are socially skilled, charismatic persons more honest-appearing and more persuasive?
Detailed content analyses of participants’ behaviors in these tasks--- tallying nearly two dozen verbal
and nonverbal behaviors from the videotapes---revealed that charismatic persons spoke faster and
more fluently, were more emotionally expressive (more smiles and changes in facial expressions),
exhibited more cues of immediacy (i.e., more eye contact, greater use of “inclusive” pronouns such as
“we”, and more outwardly directed gestures) and fewer stereotypic cues of nervousness (e.g.,
scratching oneself, shifting posture) than did non-charismatic speakers (Riggio, Tucker, & Widaman,
1987).
A well-known illustration of the perceived credibility of charismatic and non-charismatic
individuals can be seen in the 1960 U.S. presidential debates. In these televised debates, John Kennedy’s
charisma projected an image of poise, confidence, and credibility. On the other hand, Richard Nixon
(who is frequently mentioned in the lists of “non-charismatic” leaders) appeared nervous and ill-at-ease-
--exhibiting many of the nonverbal cues (shifty eyes, nervous mannerisms) that are often associated
with a “dishonest” demeanor bias. Interestingly, by his own admission, Richard Nixon was shy,
introverted, and lacking in some of the basic social/communication skill dimensions that make up
charisma.
By definition, then, charismatic persons possess the basic social and emotional skills that cause
them to be effective in a wide range of social situations. The social effectiveness of charisma, however,
is best illustrated in the leadership situation, where charismatic leaders inspire groups of followers to
achieve goals.
A. Charisma and Leadership
By far, the greatest research interest in the area of charisma focuses on charismatic leadership. [see
LEADERSHIP]. The Weberian notion that charismatic leadership lies in the relationship between the
leader’s exceptional qualities and the follower’s devotion to the leader has already been discussed, as
has Conger’s theory that focuses on charismatic leader behaviors. An additional theory of charismatic
leadership is championed by psychologist Robert House and his colleagues (House, 1977; Shamir, House,
& Arthur, 1993). According to House, charismatic leaders have the ability to communicate shared group
goals, and they convey confidence in their own abilities and in the abilities of their followers. House
believes that charismatic leaders do particularly well in situations that are ambiguous---where the
group’s goals are unclear and where environmental conditions are uncertain or unstable. Charismatic
leaders are effective in these ambiguous situations because they are able to articulate a vision of where
the group should be headed.
A very interesting study by House and his colleagues applied his charismatic leadership theory to
the effectiveness of U.S. presidents. Using historical documents, the charisma of all presidents from
Washington to Reagan were rated (House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1991). Results indicated that the more
charismatic the president, the more effective he was in dealing with the economy and domestic affairs--the areas of government that most discretely impact the followers. Thus, charismatic presidents
seemed to be responding to the most immediate needs of the followers.
Most theories of charismatic leadership, from Weber forward, emphasize the importance of
situational elements in determining the charismatic leader’s effectiveness. For Weber, the situation
must be “ripe” and the followers must show acceptance of and devotion to the leader for him or her to
become a charismatic leader. For Conger, the effective charismatic leader must exhibit charismatic
behaviors, but those behaviors must be relevant to the particular leadership situation. In House’s model,
the leader inspires the group toward the attainment of goals by using charisma to articulate a vision and
to assist followers in making sense out of an ambiguous situation. The emotional and social skill
approach to charisma does not ignore the situational influences on a charismatic leader, but leaders
who possess the basic social skills required for charisma are able to read the demands of the social
situation (as well as the needs of the followers) to adapt his or he leadership behaviors to the situational
requirements. Thus, the truly charismatic, socially skilled leader is “flexible” or adaptable, and can be
affective across a range of leadership situations.
B. Charisma and the Role of the Follower
Although there has been almost no research directly focusing on the followers of charismatic leaders,
followers play an important role in the leader’s charisma. First, it is the strong devotion of followers that
attracts additional attention to the charismatic leader. Research on power and influence refers to this as
the leader’s referent power. Followers are willing to be persuaded by the leader because of the
attraction they feel for the leader and because they strongly identify with the leader (Meindl, 1990;
Shamir, 1995). In some instances, a leader himself or herself may go relatively unnoticed by the general
public, while it is the apparent “blind devotion” of followers that first catches the public’s eye. Adolph
Hitler would be a good example. Hitler was not considered to be “leadership material,” and certainly
was not the type of person one would instantly label “charismatic.” It was the behavior of his ardent
followers that first drew attention. Later, the focus shifted to Hitler’s apparent charisma. From the
emotional and social skill perspective, Hitler did indeed possess amazing expressive skills and he was an
adept social performer.
Followers also play an important role in distinguishing charismatic from non-charismatic leaders.
It may be that charismatic individuals attract a certain type of follower. Research on the emotional
contagion process that is believed to be important in the charismatic leader’s ability to emotionally
affect others indicates that certain individuals may be more susceptible to others’ emotions. In a like
manner, some people may be more “persuadable” than others. It is likely that many followers of
charismatic leaders are persons who are simply more susceptible to the powerful emotional and verbal
messages that skilled charismatic leaders transmit. Another, related possibility is that followers of
charismatic leaders see in the charismatic individual characteristics that they themselves lack.
Identification with the charismatic leader may then be some form of psychological compensation for the
followers’ real or imagined deficiencies.
V.
CHARISMA AND WELL-BEING
A final stream of research on charisma from the emotional and social skill approach has focused on the
relationship between possession of the various communication skills underlying charisma and
psychological adjustment and well-being. There is a substantial amount of evidence that charismatic,
socially skilled individuals are indeed better adjusted than persons lacking charisma. For instance, in a
study of college student dormitory residents (Riggio, Watring, & Throckmorton, 1993), socially skilled,
charismatic students were less lonely, more self-confident, more satisfied with their lives, more satisfied
with their college experience, and more active in extracurricular activities than their non-charismatic
counterparts (although charismatic students did not do better in school, as indicated by their gradepoint averages). A study of elderly couples also found that older charismatic persons are less lonely and
more satisfied with their lives than older persons lacking charisma.
The notion that the communication and social skills that underlie charisma are related to
psychological adjustment is not new. Several clinical researchers have noted the relationship between
social skill deficiencies and psychopathology. It has been suggested that a lack of social skills may play a
part in the etiology of some forms of mental illness, and therapeutic interventions that promote the
development of social and communication skills have been a successful form of treatment for some
disorders (Perez & Riggio, 2003).
Charisma also seems to be effective in helping people cope with the stresses of everyday life.
For example, socially skilled, charismatic persons report having larger and more supportive social
networks than persons lacking the emotional and social skill dimensions underlying charisma.
Presumably, these social support networks help charismatic individuals deal with stress more
effectively. There is also some evidence that charismatic, socially skilled persons use more diverse
coping strategies than do non-charismatic individuals. This greater repertoire of coping strategies may
also enable the charismatic person to cope more successfully with stress (Riggio & Zimmerman, 1991).
[See COPING WITH STRESS; SOCIAL SUPPORT; STRESS.]
Because charisma is derived from exceptional abilities to communicate with others, to inspire, motivate,
and arouse others to action, charisma can indeed be developed and learned. Programs that are
designed to make people more affective communicators, such as Dale Carnegie-type courses, courses in
public speaking, interpersonal/social skill training programs and programs that are labeled “charisma
training,” do appear to be somewhat effective in improving the social effectiveness and communication
skills of participants. Yet, there has been little systematic research evaluating the effectiveness of
programs designed to train people to be more charismatic.
VI.
CONCLUSION
Charisma is indeed an elusive and understudied construct, yet it is one that has important implications
for mental health and psychological adjustment. Evidence from the emotional and social skill approach
to charisma defines it as possession of highly developed skills in both emotional/nonverbal and
verbal/social communication. Research indicates that emotionally and socially skilled persons are more
socially effective, are better adjusted, and that they have important leadership qualities. Moreover,
there is evidence that people can increase their personal charisma by improving their communication
skills.
References
Conger, J.A. (1989). The charismatic leader: Behind the mystique of exceptional leadership, San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Conger, J.A., & Kanungo, R.N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational
settings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637-647.
Friedman, H.S., Prince, L.M., Riggio, R.E., & DiMatteo, M.R. (1980). Understanding and assessing nonverbal
expressiveness: The Affective Communication Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 333351.
Friedman, H.S., & Riggio, R.E. (1981). Effect of individual differences in nonverbal expressiveness on transmission
of emotion. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 6, 96-104.
Friedman, H.S., Riggio, R. E., & Casella, D. (19880. Nonverbal skill, personal charisma, and initial attraction.
Personalityand Social Psychology bulletin, 14, 203-211.
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J.T., & Rapson, R.L. (1994). Emotional contagion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
House, R.J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larsen (Eds.), Leadership: The
cutting edge. (pp. 187-207). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University 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.
Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (1988). Prisoners of leadership. Human Relations, 41, 261-280.
Lindholm, C. (1990). Charisma. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
Meindl, J. R. (1990). On leadwership: An alternative to the conventional wisdom. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings
(Eds.), research in organizational behavior, vol. 12 (pp. 159-203). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Mio, J.S., Riggio, R.E., Levin, S., & Reese, R. (2005). Presidential leadership and charisma: The effects of metaphor.
The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 287-294.
Perez, J.E., & Riggio, R.E. (2003). Nonverbal social skills and psychopathology. In P. Philippot, E.J. Coats, and R.S.
Feldman (Eds.), Nonverbal behavior in clinical settings. (pp. 17-44). New York: Oxford University Press.
Riggio, R. E. (1986). Assessment of basic social skills. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 649-660.
Riggio, R. E. (1987). The charisma quotient. New York: Dodd, Mead.
Riggio, R. E. (1989). Manual for the Social Skills Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Riggio, R.E., Tucker, J.S., & Throckmorton, B. (1987). Social skills and deception ability. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 13, 568-577.
Riggio, R.E., Tucker, J.S., & Widaman, K.F. (1987). Verbal and nonverbal cues as mediators of deception ability.
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 11, 126-145.
Riggio, R.E., Watring, K., & Throckmorton, B. (1991). Social skills, social support, and psychosocial adjustment.
Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 275-280.
Riggio, R.E., & Zimmerman, J.A. (1991). Social skills and interpersonal relationships: Influences on social support
and support seeking. In W.H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships. (Vol. 2), (pp.
133-155). London: Jessica Kingsley Press.
Schiffer, I. (1973). Charisma: A psychoanalytic look at mass society. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Shamir, B. (1995). Social distance and charisma: Theoretical notes and an explanatory study. The Leadership
Quarterly, 6, 19-47.
Shamir, B., House, R.J., & Arthur, M.B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept
based theory. Organizational Science, 4, 1-17.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. (T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Free Press.