The Harvard Public Review defines it as “rooted in values and feelings. Its influence is born of the alchemy that Aristotle called the logos, the ethos, and the pathos; that is, to persuade others, you must use powerful and reasoned rhetoric, establish personal and moral credibility, and then rouse followers’ emotions and passions. If a leader can do those three things well, he or she can then tap into the hopes and ideals of followers, give them a sense of purpose, and inspire them to achieve great things.”
Most behavioral scientists see 3 distinct elements to charisma:
Power, or the ability to affect one’s surroundings through influence, authority, resources, expertise and social status, among others.
Warmth, manifested by goodwill towards others and willingness to use one’s power for the benefit of others.
Presence, expressed by being “in the moment” and being aware of what’s going on during an entire interaction.
It’s pretty obvious that, well harnessed, charisma is a valuable tool in any human pursuit, regardless of the circumstances or the culture where it’s put to use. It’s obviously a key tool for politicians, actors and salespeople.
It also works for anyone that can layer that trait into their transactional relationships to get what they’re after. This said, charisma is a perplexing trait and poses a few questions as it can be used effectively by good and malevolent people.
That’s right, charisma is not a moral value, it’s just a trait or a vehicle that defines a person’s interaction with others and has little to do with the content of their message or their intention.
Hitler was definitely very charismatic at times in his day, and so is the Dalai Lama now. I make this point because I believe that the whole charisma subject can also be a huge minefield.
The obvious next questions of course is charisma innate or a learnable skill, and if it is ill-intended, how can we unmask it right away? In the next days, I’ll make an attempt to answer these questions and perhaps more...
No comments:
Post a Comment