The Allure of Charisma

Recently, streaming services have been releasing series after series focused on charismatic leaders/grifters and the damage they cause. WeCrashed (on Apple TV) is a drama (based on the podcast) charting the rise and fall of WeWork and its charismatic leader Adam Neumann, The Dropout (on Hulu) does the same but with Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes, and then there is Inventing Anna (on Netflix) which follows the fallout of faux socialite and unrepentant scammer Anna Sorokin. The allure of charisma and promise of profit is the reason Neumann and Holmes were able to continue to access capital despite numerous red flags. One could argue it was just the promise of profit in the case of Anna, but she was a commanding enough presence to run a convincing con. It seems like a good time to analyze charisma. Its allure. And how it is, both positively and negatively, used.

What is Charisma?

The Merriam-Webster definitions of charisma are:

1. A personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a public figure (such as a political leader)
   
2. A special magnetic charm or appeal ¹

Words like “magic” and “special” ring true. Charisma isn’t a trait where you can picture it in action (like aggression for example). When I say charisma you likely picture someone you know or know of, who is charismatic.

Charisma is a case of “you know it when you see it”. And as a result, it seems a form of bewitchment. The ancient Greeks described it as “a gift of grace”. 

The Magic of Charisma

So, some people are captivating and we just can’t say why.

The research on charisma finds consensus among psychologists and experts on organizational behavior that, while some personality traits (like extroversion) help, charisma can be broken down and learned. However, because charisma seems magical, this consensus is hard to accept. I did an informal poll on Instagram and the results imply many people likely view charisma as an innate gift.

What there is not much debate about is that charismatic people get results. John Antonakis outlined an experiment in a recent TED Talk² where temporary workers, hired to send mailouts for a charity, were divided into three groups:

1. Received no bonus for high performance and a standard speech about the work. 
2. Given a bonus for high performance and the same standard speech.
3. Received no bonus but a “charismatic” speech.

The performance of workers in Group 3 (who again, did not receive a bonus, just a charismatic speech) was almost indistinguishable from Group 2 (who received a bonus).

This experiment leads us to quantification. After all, if you can call a speech “charismatic” there must be traits social scientists use to quantify charisma.

Quantifying Charisma

A 2012 article in the Harvard business review³ had experts break down the “set of skills” that comprise charisma. “Charismatic Leadership Tactics” (CLTs) are broken down as follows:

1. Connect, Compare, and Contrast
   • Use metaphors, similes, and analogies. These create a connection with an audience. And add clarity to a position and/or proposition.
2. Engage and Distill
   • Rhetorical questions make the audience involved. 
   • Distilling complex ideas into three-part lists works. Three is enough to show a pattern. And an audience can remember three things.
3. Show Integrity, Authority, and Passion
   • Expressions of moral conviction and statements that reflect the sentiments of the group convey passion
   • Set high goals. This conveys confidence that the goals can be achieved.
   • Three nonverbal cues—expressions of voice, body, and face—are also key to charisma. They don’t come naturally to everyone, however, and they are the most culturally sensitive tactics.

The Natural

If charisma is a set of skills how is it that some people seem to be in possession of it from a very young age? And why does it not seem rehearsed but organic?

Some people are in possession of traits that make charisma seem effortless. Former President Bill Clinton was known for his charisma.⁴ This was true even for those in opposition to his policies. People would speak of the way in which he could spotlight a person in a group. Making them feel as though they were the most important person in a room full of people.

For those who wanted more criticism from the American public, Clinton’s charisma was just one of the frustrating hurdles during his impeachment. In fact, after his impeachment proceedings in 1998 and 1999, his approval rating was 73%.

Clinton is likely a natural extrovert. He is also known to have an excellent memory. Reportedly, he could remember your full name, “even if he met you years ago”. And humans respond to their names. They feel heard and valued when people use them. Your brain lights up differently to the sound of your own name.⁵

These are two traits that help explain the charisma of someone like Clinton. Detractors might also wish to highlight the role charisma played in helping to buffer him from accountability and exploit others (one of the dangers of charisma we will touch on).

If you hone a skill from an early age, you will seem like a natural. Clinton had a challenging childhood that would have demanded the need to hone skills to succeed. 

 Not all charismatic people have challenging childhoods but the “practice” of charisma can occur in these circumstances.⁶

The RDF

Engineers on the original Macintosh team were in awe of Steve Jobs’ ability to cajole anyone to accept any position and work well beyond their own perceived capacity. They named the imaginary force field that surrounded Jobs the Reality Distortion Field (or RDF). The theory behind the name is that the field allowed him to bend reality to persuade people.⁷ 

The notion of the RDF introduces the dark side of charisma. Charisma is a skill that can be used to exploit others. And in this way, it can be harmful.

The Dark Side

Scott Galloway is a professor of marketing at the New York University Stern School of Business. He worked on the podcast WeCrashed and attempted to explain the absurd overvaluation of WeWork. The ability to gain access to large amounts of capital, he says, is rooted in “visionary storytelling”. And this is something charismatic former CEO of WeWork Adam Neumann has in spades.

WeWork used much of the language of a tech company so Galloway also breaks down the hero-worship of the “charismatic CEO”, especially when it comes to tech.

Humans have brains big enough to ask complicated questions but not big enough to answer them and, as Galloway says, “into that void slips a superbeing”.

In countries that have more wealth and education, the need for a superbeing decreases but the void of unknowing remains. And currently, one of the closest things we have to a religious or god-like superpower is technology.⁸

The charismatic leader can of course be problematic beyond business. Dr. Sander van der Linden is an Assistant Professor in Social Psychology and the Director of the Cambridge Social Decision-Making Laboratory. He confirms that the biggest negative of a charismatic leader is the tendency of a populace to follow without question. Especially during times of trouble.⁹

 “Charismatic leaders become much more prominent in times of social crisis and social change because they present simple solutions to very complex problems. We naturally drift towards resolving a state of anxiety because it is uncomfortable, so heightened receptiveness to a charismatic person is not unusual, and we become open to ideas that we might not otherwise be open to. In addition, being anxious eats up brain space, so we are less likely to think carefully and rationalize arguments.”

Dr. Sander van der Linden

What Can Be Done?

Charisma is worth studying. It increases the likelihood of obtaining a leadership role, or even simply being listened to. And if you’re working towards a goal that’s a powerful tool to have at your disposal.

It is also worth studying how people respond to charisma as occasionally you may find yourself responding more to the charisma of a person than the quality of their ideas.

“Basically, the whole process needs to be interrupted,” Dr. Van der Linden says. “The brain needs to be specifically prompted to become more analytical.

---

---

Sources

1. Merriam-Webster
2. Let’s Face it Charisma Matters, By John Antonakis, TEDxLausanne
3. Learning Charisma, By John Antonakis, Marika Fenley, Sue Liechti,  Harvard Business Review
4. Bill Clinton: A Study in Charisma, By Stephanie A. Sarkis. Psychology Today
5. Brain Activation When Hearing One’s Own and Others’ Names, Dennis P. Carmody, Michael Lewis, National Center for Biotechnology Information
6. Charisma: The Phenomenon and its Psychology: A Mental Health Perspective, Ajit V. Bhide, Indian Journal of Psychology
7. The Reality Distortion Field (RDF), Chris Foresman, Ars Technica 
8. WeCrashed, Hosted by David Brown, Wondery
9. On Charisma, Catherine Galloway, CAM (Cambridge Alumni Magazine) Issue 85

Further Study

• How to Develop Charisma, Psychology Today
• It’s Time to Stop Celebrating Charisma, By Jessica Stillman, Inc.com
• What Makes People Charismatic, and How You Can Be Too, By Bryan Clark, The New York Times
• 9 Ways to Increase Your Charisma: Lessons From Rock Stars That Can Help Get You Heard, By Ruth Blatt Ph.D., Psychology Today