Before you press the delete button on this blog, I have some very good news for you. Contrary to conventional wisdom, charisma is primarily learned not inherent. If you’ve lived a few decades, you know several potentially charismatic schoolmates who gained very little from their talent. Why is this? Simple. They didn’t take the steps to develop that potential.
Definition: Charisma: (1) a spiritual gift or talent regarded as grace and favor, and (2) a special magnetic charm or appeal
Most people believe the charismatics get plenty of
opportunities, unfairly so. But that’s a half truth—very similar to the belief
that “nice guys finish first.” The nice guys who finish first are inevitably characterized
by significant, relevant competencies to support their nice-guyness. And the attractive
charismatics whom we admire are like the nice guys. They’ve nailed their competencies
and use them for their own good as well as that of the organization and the
people. So first, disabuse yourself of the notion that charismatics are inevitably
handsome leaders, sometimes evil, with people fawning around them willing to
drink the kool-aid. I’m not talking about that animal. Nor am I talking about
the so-called “gifted by god” folk.
Some background
These two definitions have been a part of conventional
wisdom for. . . well, centuries. In the early centuries, charisma was viewed as
gift or talent from god. More recently that emphasis has been discarded and charisma
has come to be understood as a special magnetic charm or appeal. Although
psychologists agree that we have different talents or interests and that the
charismatic folk have more potential for personal success than others, it’s the
second definition that drives their conclusion. Thus, in a recent blog, Harvard’s Rosabeth Kanter defined
charisma for the business world emphasizing its ability to assemble people as a
result of one’s personal magnetism. But, and here’s the hook, she insisted that
“oratory or rhetoric” are not part of the package.
Now, I deeply admire Kanter’s ideas and her consistently superb, highly useful blogging. But in her rejection of “oratory or rhetoric,” she’s tossing out the baby with the bathwater. She seems to be neither aware of nor to understand the role of rhetoric in the development of charisma. Sure, like all of us, she’s very aware of the perversions of rhetoric—politicians who will sacrifice the truth and the state to get the vote, and entertainers who will sacrifice substance and their personal lives to personality. But rhetoric is ultimately about the development of substance, salience, vocabulary choice, idea invention, style and polish, and the ability to adjust ideas to one’s audience. What makes for great rhetoric is the spectacle of a politician or businessperson passionately involved in thinking through ideas and issues, in the company of his audience.
Not to be hoisting her on her own petard, but Ms. Kanter is a superb rhetorician; prolific in the development of leading-edge ideas, rhetorically able in most any subject-related challenge, profoundly audience-knowledgeable in her ability to adjust her blogs and books to her readers, with an informal style well-focused on the business audience and its needs. In short, much of her huge success is tied intimately to her own rhetorical abilities.
So it must be said that the person who thinks about rhetoric from solely a negative perspective just doesn’t get it. For that matter, Prof. Kanter, a brilliant sociologist with plenty of psych background, needs to remember that both sociology and psychology are disciplines with fellow travelers who regularly engage in the perversion of those disciplines. “Pop-psych,” for example, is a well-known devil word referring to the shallow, misuse of psychology. And much of the tabloid magazine culture is built upon a perversion of the insights of sociology.
Two keys to
charisma
However, I’m grateful to Dr. Kanter’s blog discussion
because it provides a relevant context for emphasizing two major, overlapping
features of attractive charisma, both of which can be cultivated.
Listening: One starting place for charisma is an extreme form of listening, what John Hagel and his colleagues call “deep listening,” that which draws out and uncovers the big issues and difficulties the other person is wrestling with—then shares his own. Recently, I had the good fortune to observe a brilliant 29-year-old listener interacting with a local bank board member, who was attempting to enlist the young man to his board. In the hour-long conversation, this young man leaned forward, his eyes focused completely upon his colleague, with highly animated features, smiling, nodding, occasionally clarifying and questioning deeply, his ears focused on everything the board member was saying. His package of responses was magnetic, eliciting ever more in-depth information. Indeed, the banker gave him very specific instructions for how to fill out the application and what subjects to talk about to succeed in the opportunity. When I talked to the board member later, his response regarding my friend’s charisma was telling: “God, is this guy brilliant! And a wonderful person. Thanks for introducing me.”
Although few would ever think about listening as an element of charisma, the competency is key to attraction and relationships. Indeed, the most basic rule of listening is this: this listener controls the speaker. It is not the speaker who controls the listener.
Rhetoric: A person’s communicative competency, yes, their rhetoric, is the second key to attractive charisma. By rhetoric I refer to the pragmatic skills of communication: that very human effort to bring about cooperation and collaboration.
The three oldest disciplines in the history of the Western world, the Trivium, are grammar, logic and rhetoric. Although most academics in other fields are unaware of the contributions of rhetoric or even annoyed by it, over the past 20 years it has become an exploding field. Aside from Groysberg and Slind’s recent book, Talk, Inc., only a handful of well-known business scholars, including Michigan’s Karl Weick, understand and emphasize the field—though they fail to use the term. Indeed, Weick argues strongly that the success of a business is often tied to its vocabulary. Sensemaking in Organizations, his grand book from 1995, strongly emphasizes the role of rhetoric in business. Like Groysberg, Weick concludes that leadership is conversation, but labels it sensemaking (read, rhetoric).
Business faces a serious problem in that though technology ultimately demands ever more rhetoric, today’s students, and especially techies, have less and less rhetorical ability and as a result are limited in the vocabulary, conversational and sensemaking skills of charisma. But Kanter could not be more right when she emphasizes the role of charisma, pointing out that venture capitalists’ rule of thumb is to bet on the leader, not the idea. In that world charisma is the decisive factor.
How listening and
rhetoric work together
So how do you develop your rhetoric, your communication
competencies? Certainly reading and writing, as well as a broad experience base
are necessary. But being around thoughtful, intelligent business people goes a
long way, if, that is you’re engaging in deep listening. One way of thinking
about rhetoric and communication, from as far back as Aristotle, is to view it
as the development of good reasons. The effective listener digs deeply to
understand, verbalize and even use his colleague’s reasons for decision making,
problem solving, strategy, or whatever. He capitalizes on his colleagues’ ideas
and reasons, in his own sensemaking.
The counsel here is simple: Do whatever you can to increase the variety and the adaptability of the language (rhetoric) in which you work.
Flickr Photo: Search engine people blog