crisis and charisma in the california recall election

http://lea.sagepub.com

Leadership

DOI: 10.1177/1742715005054440 2005; 1; 323 Leadership

Michelle C. Bligh, Jeffrey C. Kohles and Rajnandini Pillai Crisis and Charisma in the California Recall Election

http://lea.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/1/3/323 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Leadership Additional services and information for

http://lea.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://lea.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://lea.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/1/3/323SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):

(this article cites 33 articles hosted on the Citations

© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. by Tomislav Bunjevac on August 6, 2008 http://lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://lea.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://lea.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://lea.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/1/3/323


Leadership

Copyright © 2005 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)Vol 1(3): 323–352 DOI: 10.1177/1742715005054440 www.sagepublications.com

Crisis and Charisma in the CaliforniaRecall ElectionMichelle C. Bligh, Claremont Graduate University, USA, Jeffrey C. Kohles,California State University San Marcos, USA and Rajnandini Pillai, CaliforniaState University San Marcos, USA

Abstract The 2003 California recall election represented a unique opportunity tostudy leadership in the context of what has been described in the popular media asan economic and political crisis. Participants (N = 311) reported their perceptionsof the current situation in California and their tendency to attribute outcomes toleaders rather than situational factors (the Romance of Leadership Scale, or RLS).They subsequently watched video clips of the incumbent, the incumbent partychallenger and the outside challenger, and rated their delivery style, charisma andexpected effectiveness in office. Results indicate that both challengers were rated asmore charismatic than the incumbent, and crisis perceptions were related to expectedeffectiveness ratings for all three candidates. In addition, higher charismatic deliverywas associated with higher ratings of charisma and effectiveness. Finally, the RLSwas significantly related to ratings of the outside challenger’s charisma, and inter-acted with crisis perceptions to predict charisma ratings of both the incumbent partychallenger and the outside challenger. Implications for the relationship betweencrisis and charisma, the importance of charismatic delivery style, and situationalinfluences on the RLS are discussed.

Keywords charisma; crisis; election; leadership

IntroductionCharismatic leadership remains an important and widely studied phenomenon inorganizational research. Empirically, charisma has been linked to a variety of import-ant organizational outcomes, including performance, perceptions of leader effective-ness, subordinate effort, and satisfaction with leader performance (Avolio et al.,1988; Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Bass, 1988, 1990). While charismatic leadershiphas been studied extensively over the last two decades, the field has been criticizedfor focusing too heavily on leader-centered assumptions (Meindl, 1990), and over-emphasizing the behavioral and personality characteristics of the charismatic leader(Dvir & Shamir, 2003). In addition, the field has been criticized for neglecting thecontextual and situational factors that may be more or less conducive to the



emergence of charismatic leadership (Beyer, 1999a, 1999b; Shamir & Howell, 1999).In light of these criticisms, the current study is an attempt to assess how multipledimensions of the charismatic leadership process – characteristics of the leader, thefollower, and the situation – interact to determine overall perceptions of charismaticleadership and effectiveness.

The 2003 California recall election represented a unique and historical oppor-tunity to study perceptions of leader effectiveness and charisma in the context of whatwas described as a ‘serious political and economic crisis’ (Lupia, 2003: B1) in thestate of California (Balz, 2003). California was the hub of the 1990s technologybubble, and it suffered the consequences of the stock market collapse of 2000–2, thenational recession, and the jobless recovery. Further, as a result of voter initiatives,about 70 per cent of the state’s spending is earmarked in advance, limiting thegovernor’s ability to make trade offs in a crisis (Tyson, 2003). Together, these factorsprecipitated a massive budgetary crisis, which coupled with incumbent DemocraticGovernor Davis’s widely cited non-charismatic personality (see Harper, 2003; Poole,2003) and perceived inability to resolve the crisis, fueled voter discontent andtriggered the recall. Against this contextual backdrop, the three main candidates inthe California recall election were described as having very different leadershipstyles, and as possessing more or less charismatic qualities. For example, GovernorGray Davis was frequently cited in the media as lacking charisma (Bailey, 2003;Provance, 2003) or even possessing ‘anti-charisma’ (Bevins, cited in Borowitz,2003). Incumbent Democratic challenger Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante wasdescribed as uncharismatic as well. In contrast, as the Republican outside challenger,Austrian-born international movie star and California businessman ArnoldSchwarzenegger’s charismatic presence was repeatedly touted (Harper, 2003;Murphy, 2003).

We sought to explore how the situation in the state of California in the fall of 2003(i.e. the varying perceptions of the level of severity of the fiscal crisis and the needto elect a new leader) influenced voters’ attributions about the candidates’ charismaand expected effectiveness once in office. Pearson and Clair (1998) define a crisis asa ‘low-probability, high-impact event that threatens the viability of the organizationand is characterized by ambiguity of cause, effect, and means of resolution, as wellas by a belief that decisions must be made swiftly’ (p. 59). Following Weber (1947),times of crisis have been argued to create an increased opportunity for charismaticleadership to emerge, and a number of studies have examined the effects of crisis onthe leadership relationship (Bligh et al., 2004a, 2004b; Halverson et al., 2004; Houseet al., 1991; Hunt et al., 1999; Lord & Maher, 1991; Pillai, 1996; Pillai & Meindl,1998; Stewart, 1967, 1976).

Despite the growing number of studies that examine charisma in various crisissituations, our understanding of the interrelationships among charismatic processesand crisis situations is far from complete. In addition, the vast majority of work oncrisis and charismatic leadership has been done in the laboratory, raising questionsof both the generalizability and the ecological validity of these findings. As Shamirand Howell (1999) point out: ‘while crisis can facilitate the emergence of charismaticleadership, it is not a necessary condition for its emergence, nor for the success ofsuch leadership’ (p. 258). However, in his review of charismatic leadership, Yukl(1999) contends that an uncertain and turbulent environment is a facilitating

Leadership 1(3) Articles

324



condition for charismatic leadership, as it provides both threats and opportunities forthe organization.

Viewing political leadership in the recall election as a relationship between thecandidates and California voters, we sought to explore how aspects of the situation,characteristics of the candidates, and follower attributes jointly contribute to thecharismatic leadership relationship. Awamleh and Gardner (1999) point out thatalthough leader- and follower-driven approaches may appear to be competing andmutually exclusive, they may actually offer complementary insights into leadershipprocesses. We concur, and derive our theoretical approach from a tradition of charis-matic research that emphasizes the role of the leader, the follower, and the situationin shaping the charismatic relationship (Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Conger, 1989;Gardner & Avolio, 1998; Hughes et al., 2001; Klein & House, 1995; Shamir, 1995).Based on this tradition, the current study has three primary purposes: (1) to explorethe relationship between perceptions of crisis and charismatic leadership; (2) toinvestigate whether participants’ tendencies to attribute outcomes to leaders arerelated to their assessments of charisma and expected effectiveness in office; and (3)to further our understanding of the role leader characteristics such as delivery styleplay on attributions of charisma and effectiveness.

Situational influences on charismatic leadershipShamir and Howell (1999) develop a number of propositions concerning character-istics of the situation that may be more or less conducive to the emergence of acharismatic leader. Three of these characteristics are relevant to the current study: (1)low organizational performance leading to the desire for new leadership; (2) thepotential for a new leader to replace a somewhat non-charismatic leader; and (3) arelatively ‘weak’ situation (Mischel, 1977) characterized by ambiguity and crisis.Each of these situational factors creates opportunities for both leaders and followersto act in ways that create a potentially fertile ground for charismatic leadership. Webriefly discuss each of these characteristics in the context of the 2003 Californiarecall election.

A long tradition of research dating back to Grusky (1963) suggests that leader-ship changes tend to occur more often when organizational performance is lower thanexpected. In such situations, leadership change often occurs because leaders areconvenient ‘scapegoats’ who can easily be blamed for low performance (Shamir &Howell, 1999). When opportunities exist for a new leader to be elected or appointed,as in the recall election, expectations for change among followers are likely toincrease. Entering the organization, the new leader has ‘numerous opportunities tore-frame and change existing interpretations, suggest new solutions to existingproblems, and infuse a new spirit’ (p. 273). The fact that a recall election wasprecipitated, creating the potential for a new leader to provide an impetus for neededchange, may thus be a powerful force driving charismatic attributions for thechallengers.

In addition, Shamir and Howell (1999) posit that new leaders are more likely toemerge as charismatic when they replace non-charismatic leaders. Given mediaaccounts denoting the incumbent leader in this case as ‘charismatically challenged’(see for example Bailey, 2003; Borowitz, 2003; Provance, 2003), increased

Leadership The California Recall Election Bligh et al.

325



attributions of charismatic leadership to the challengers may be expected. Althoughthis may seem counterintuitive given non-charismatic media depictions of the incum-bent challenger, there is evidence to suggest that voters are more likely to evaluate aleader from their own political party as charismatic or transformational (Pillai et al.,2003). Therefore, Democrats may see the incumbent challenger as a more charismat-ically appealing choice in the context of a recall election in which the Governor’sperformance is strongly questioned and the incumbent challenger is a lesser-knownpersonality.

Hypothesis 1: Charismatic attributions will be significantly higher forchallengers (new leaders) than for the incumbent (an establishedleader)

Perceptions of crisis and ambiguity represent a third contextual factor relevant to thecurrent study. Previous theoretical and empirical work suggests that the occurrenceof a crisis may significantly affect the relationship between leaders and followers(Bligh et al., 2004a, 2004b; House et al., 1991; Hunt et al., 1999; Pillai, 1996; Pillai& Meindl, 1991, 1998). Almost by definition, crisis situations engender perceptionsof uncertainty and ambiguity (Pearson & Clair, 1998). In addition, numerous scholarshave suggested that feelings of uncertainty may foster a greater appreciation forstrong, decisive leadership often associated with charismatic leaders (Lord & Maher,1991; Stewart, 1967, 1976; Yukl, 2002). Accepting a leader’s interpretation of eventsand believing in his or her ability to deal with followers’ problems relieves follow-ers of the psychological stress and loss of control created in the aftermath of a crisis(Bandura, 2001). As Shamir and Howell (1999) put it, post-crisis followers ‘willreadily, even eagerly, accept the influence of a leader who seems to have high self-confidence and a vision that provides both meaning to the current situation andpromise of salvation from the currently acute distress’ (p. 260).

Shamir and Howell (1999) propose that crisis situations are special cases of whatcan more generally be termed ‘weak’ situations, where performance goals cannotbe easily specified. Drawing on Mischel (1977), Shamir and Howell define strongsituations as structured and clear contexts in which everyone similarly construes thesituation and there are uniform expectations regarding appropriate responses. Weaksituations, in contrast, are more ambiguous and less structured, and do not provideclear cues as to what would constitute effective leadership behaviors. The ambigu-ity experienced by people in unstructured situations, coupled with their tendency tolook for externally derived cues to guide their behavior, together create oppor-tunities for the emergence and influence of charismatic leaders. Given this defi-nition, the context of the recall election is an excellent example of a relativelyunstructured situation, in which it may have been difficult for voters to accuratelyassess the most effective leadership actions or behaviors needed to resolve thebudgetary crisis in California.

It is important to note that in this election, the incumbent party challenger has aunique dual status that may have important effects on voters’ perceptions. Throughhis role as Lieutenant Governor and ‘second in command’ of the state of California,Cruz Bustamante has characteristics representative of both incumbent and chal-lenger. This situation is similar to one faced by many organizations as vice presidents


326



or other high-level executives are groomed and promoted from within for topexecutive positions. As new leaders, they may alternately be perceived as repre-sentatives of both the new and the old leadership, either welcomed as developers ofa new vision or blamed for past failures and shortcomings. For followers whoperceive a serious crisis situation that needs to be swiftly addressed, the incumbentparty challenger may be evaluated as part of the current leadership establishment,responsible to a greater or lesser degree for the performance of the state ororganization.

Hypothesis 2a: Perceptions of a state of crisis will be negatively relatedto ratings of charisma for incumbent party candidates, but positivelyrelated to ratings of charisma for outside challengers

Hypothesis 2b: Perceptions of a state of crisis will be negatively relatedto ratings of expected effectiveness for incumbent party candidates, butpositively related to ratings of expected effectiveness for outsidechallengers

Follower readiness for charismaThe above argument for the influence of weak situations on charismatic leadershipemergence is consistent with follower-centered approaches to leadership that empha-size the function of charismatic leadership as a collective coping mechanism(Madsen & Snow, 1991; Meindl, 1993). Beyer (1999b) notes that strong needs infollowers, such as a shared perception of a crisis or ambiguous situation, may drivethem to ‘socially construct and project qualities on a person to satisfy that need’(p. 581). This collective desire to identify exceptional qualities in a leader suggeststhat the leader’s qualities themselves may be actual or attributed. For example, Blighet al. (2004a, 2004b) provide evidence that the crisis of 11 September 2001 set thestage for a transformation of the leadership relationship between President GeorgeW. Bush and the American public. Prior to the crisis, Bush was generally not seen asa strong, charismatic leader that people would easily place their faith in during timesof crisis or external threat. However, their findings suggest that the crisis affectedboth the President’s rhetoric and the public’s desire for a charismatically appealingleader, increasing the possibilities for the emergence of charismatic leadership. Pillaiand Meindl (1991) also found that followers used charismatic criteria for emergentleadership more frequently in crisis situations than under less threatening conditions.They conclude that the attributes associated with charismatic leadership are moreinfluenced by contextual factors and follower perceptions than other types of leader-ship (i.e. transactional).

An emphasis on follower readiness for charisma is consistent with a romance ofleadership perspective, which emphasizes leadership as a social construction that isstrongly influenced by both followers and context (Meindl et al., 1985). Further, thisapproach emphasizes the situations and states of follower readiness in which leader-ship is more or less likely to emerge. Meindl (1990) suggests that some individualsexhibit a dispositional tendency to attribute outcomes to leaders across situations; theRomance of Leadership Scale (RLS) was developed to measure this tendency(Meindl & Ehrlich, 1988).


327



According to Ehrlich and colleagues (1990), those with high scores on the RLSare more likely to attribute responsibility for outcomes to leaders and perceive themas influential and charismatic. Meindl (1990) provides evidence that perceptions ofcharismatic leadership are likely to be greater in followers who attribute outcomesto leaders. Following our previous argument that in this situation, voters are likely toassociate the state’s fiscal crisis and poor performance with the incumbent partycandidates, and look to an outside challenger to solve the crisis and improveperformance, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 3a: Tendencies to attribute outcomes to leaders (high scoreson the RLS) will be negatively related to perceptions of charisma forincumbent party candidates, but positively related to perceptions ofcharisma for outside challengers

Hypothesis 3b: Tendencies to attribute outcomes to leaders (high scoreson the RLS) will be negatively related to perceived expectedeffectiveness of incumbent party candidates, but positively related toperceptions of expected effectiveness for outside challengers

While the RLS has often been conceptualized as a dispositional tendency (seeAwamleh & Gardner, 1999), Meindl (1995) also emphasizes potential situationalinput factors for the RLS, suggesting that ‘the underlying assumption is that certaincontextual features, quite independently of the personal attributes of followers, alterthe nature of emergent leadership constructions’ (p. 335). He goes on to specifyperformance cues and perceptions of crisis as relevant situational factors, both ofwhich represent important contextual variables in our study. Therefore, furtherresearch is necessary to uncover the extent to which the RLS represents a ‘state-like’ versus ‘trait-like’ tendency to attribute outcomes to leaders. In the currentstudy, we theorize that scores on the RLS could potentially be influenced by anindividual’s perceptions of a current state of crisis. Stated differently, perceptionsof crisis may create a state of follower readiness, as reflected by high scores on theRLS, in which followers are more likely to attribute greater levels of charisma andexpected effectiveness to all leaders as compared to followers who do not perceivea state of crisis.

Hypothesis 4: Increased perceptions of crisis will strengthen therelationship between the RLS and attributions of charisma andexpected effectiveness for all candidates

Leader characteristics: charismatic delivery styleCharacteristics of the leader also play an important role in the charismatic leadershiprelationship, and numerous scholars have advanced our understanding in this area(see Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1993; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Conger & Kanungo,1987, 1998; Deluga, 2001; House et al., 1988; Tichy & Devanna, 1986). Due to thelarge social distance between the Gubernatorial candidates and California voters, wefocus specifically here on delivery style as one of the primary sources of informationvoters have to assess the potential leadership skills of each candidate. Characteristics


328



of delivery such as intonation, timing, and gesture have been linked to audiencereceptivity of political messages (Heritage & Greatbatch, 1986), suggesting thatthe way that a political message is delivered both complements and reinforces themessage and how it is received (Atkinson, 1984). A growing number of empiricalstudies have examined the relationship of delivery to charismatic attributions,suggesting that delivery is an important component of the charismatic leadershiprelationship (see for example Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Howell & Frost, 1989;Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996).

Holladay and Coombs (1993, 1994) suggest both content and delivery areimportant in predicting charismatic attributions in followers. Content is defined asthe actual words a leader uses, while delivery is defined as the behavioral componentsof body movement, speech pattern, vocal tone, and intensity variation that character-ize a speaker’s communications. Charismatic delivery behaviors thus include bothverbal and nonverbal components, including eye contact, gestures, facial expressive-ness, energy, fluidity, and vocal tone variety. Taken together, these componentscomprise the physical presence a leader transmits through his or her communicationstyle.

While the relative effects of content and delivery have been examined (see DenHartog & Verburg, 1997; Holladay & Coombs, 1993, 1994; Kirkpatrick & Locke,1996) debate remains regarding their relative importance, particularly in real worldsituations. On the basis of two laboratory studies, Holladay and Coombs (1993, 1994)conclude that delivery is relatively more important than content in predictingcharismatic attributions. Awamleh and Gardner (1999) report similar findings in alaboratory study in which undergraduates rated a fictitious CEO of a softwarecompany. They conclude that ‘strength of delivery is an especially important deter-minant of perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness’ (p. 345). Although theskillful use of charismatic content has been argued to be a critical component ofcharismatic leaders’ visionary behavior (Bligh et al., 2004a, 2004b; Emrich et al.,2001), a voter’s ability to distinguish levels of charismatic language in the traditionalsummative closing statement is difficult to assess with real life candidates, whosespeeches are not systematically varied for charismatic content. For these reasons, inthe present study we focus on the extent to which voters perceived the candidates topossess charismatic delivery.

Although much has been written about the importance of delivery to charisma,few studies have been undertaken to examine the role of delivery outside of thelaboratory. In leader-follower relationships characterized by greater social distance,in which followers may rely solely on the leader’s verbal cues (Shamir, 1995), therelationship between delivery and charisma may be critically important in influenc-ing attributions of charisma. Therefore, across all candidates the followinghypotheses were applicable:

Hypothesis 5a: Higher levels of charismatic delivery in the candidates’speeches will be associated with higher ratings of charisma

Hypothesis 5b: Higher levels of charismatic delivery in the candidates’speeches will be associated with higher ratings of expected effectiveness


329



Methods

Participants

Three hundred and eleven college students were recruited from graduate and under-graduate business and psychology courses in two southern California universities: alarge public state school and a small private university. All data collection wascompleted in the four days immediately preceding the California recall election of7 October 2003. Participants were between the ages of 19 and 57 (M = 26.97, SD =7.12; Mdn = 25), and 52 per cent were female. Participants overwhelmingly listedCalifornia as their state of residence (96 per cent), and lived in the state an average of19.7 years at the time of data collection. Respondents were primarily white (52.7 percent), with 19.4 per cent Asian/Pacific Islander, 12.5 per cent Hispanic, 2.3 per centblack, 7.2 per cent multi-racial, and 4.6 per cent ‘other’. Political affiliation wasalmost equally divided between Democrat (30.9 per cent) and Republican (37.2 percent), with 20.7 per cent listing their party affiliation as Independent and 11.2 percent as ‘other’. Participants rated their political ideology as 3.60 (SD = 1.20) on ascale of 1 = very conservative to 6 = very liberal, indicating that they were somewhatliberal. Overall, our sample compares well with the results of an exit poll of 4,214voters across California conducted by The Washington Post on 7 October 2003.

Procedure

Students were given a questionnaire packet that asked them to answer a series ofquestions assessing their perceptions of the current situation in California and theirtendency to attribute outcomes to leaders. After completing Part One of the question-naire, participants were asked to watch a short video clip of the incumbent GrayDavis, the incumbent party challenger Cruz Bustamante, or the outside challengerArnold Schwarzenegger. For Bustamante and Schwarzenegger, participants watchedthe candidates’ closing statements from the major nationally televised Gubernatorialdebate (24 September 2003). Because Gray Davis did not participate in this debate,we chose an equivalent closing statement from his debate less than one year earlier(7 October 2002) in his campaign for re-election to Governor. All three televisionclips showed the candidates addressing the camera directly for approximately twominutes. Respondents were advised that the study involved ‘general opinions aboutpolitical leaders’ and the purpose of showing the video clips was to remind respon-dents of the candidates in order to assess their general impressions of each. Thevideos were not intended to be a manipulation; they were intended to mimic thenaturalistic setting in which voters might assess candidates’ leadership characteristicsbased on a relatively brief exposure to a leader’s purposeful communication to thevoters. After viewing each clip, participants completed a series of questions abouteach candidate as well as general background questions.

Measures

All measures were assessed on seven-point Likert scales with endpoints of ‘DisagreeVery Strongly’ and ‘Agree Very Strongly’.


330



CrisisIn the absence of any appropriately validated measures for measuring perceptions ofa state of crisis in California, we generated four items based on Pearson and Clair’s(1998: 59) definition of crisis: (1) ‘California is currently in a state of crisis’; (2) ‘Theproblems facing California are severe’; (3) ‘Swift decisions must be made in orderto resolve the current state of affairs in California’; and (4) ‘It is unclear how to solvethe current situation in California’. Examination of the inter-item correlationssuggested the deletion of item four, resulting in a three-item scale with an alphaof .78.

Romance of leadershipThe tendency to view leadership as important in determining organizationaloutcomes was measured using the shortened, 11-item Version C of the Romance ofLeadership Scale (Meindl & Ehrlich, 1988). A sample item is ‘Sooner or later, badleadership at the top will show up in decreased performance’. Similar to the findingsof others (see Awamleh & Gardner, 1999), the RLS did not load on one factor. AnExploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) using principal components analysis withvarimax rotation yielded a two-factor solution. Further examination of the factorstructure revealed that the four reverse-coded items loaded on a separate factor. Wethus deleted these items from the scale, resulting in a single factor solution for sevenitems (alpha = .81).

Charisma and expected effectivenessThe second part of the questionnaire included items from the Multifactor LeadershipQuestionnaire (MLQ-5X Short Form; Bass & Avolio, 1995). A sample item is ‘Artic-ulates a compelling vision of the future’. Although numerous concerns have beenraised regarding the factor structure of the MLQ (Antonakis et al., 2003; Awamleh& Gardner, 1999; Bycio et al., 1995; Tejeda et al., 2001), it has been extensivelyutilized and validated across a wide variety of contexts (Bass & Avolio, 1993, 1995).We incorporated three four-item scales of charisma: Attributed Charisma (AC),Idealized Influence (II), and Inspirational Motivation (IM). In addition, we alsoincluded four items to assess expectations of leader effectiveness (EF).

Three separate factor analyses were run on each of the respective candidates andresults were compared for likeness of factor loadings. EFA utilizing principalcomponents analysis with varimax rotation yielded two factors, and these resultsdiffered only slightly from those of Awamleh and Gardner (1999). Factor 1 includedseven items, and is similar to the effectiveness factor found by Awamleh and Gardner,with the addition of the fourth effectiveness item (‘Is effective in representingCalifornia to higher authorities’). Factor 2 included all of Awamleh and Gardner’sperceived charisma items with the addition of the item ‘Is charismatic’ and thesubtraction of the fourth effectiveness item. All factors had loadings higher than 3.0.Based on these results, we collapsed the AC, II, and IM scales into a single measureof perceived charisma. As the conceptual and empirical rationale for doing so hasbeen stated elsewhere (p. 354), we will not reiterate it here. In addition, we droppedthe three charisma items that failed to load onto the second factor to form a four-item measure of effectiveness. A subsequent EFA produced a two-factor solution.Reliability coefficients for perceived charisma were .87 for Davis, .92 for


331



Bustamante, and .87 for Schwarzenegger; expected effectiveness alphas were .96 forDavis, .96 for Schwarzenegger, and .97 for Bustamante.

Charismatic delivery styleMeasures of charismatic delivery style were adopted from Holladay and Coombs’s(1993, 1994) studies and from theoretical arguments put forth by Awamleh andGardner (1999) and Howell and Frost (1989). Holladay and Coombs’s measures arederived from Norton’s (1983) communicator style construct; however, only thesubconstructs of attentive, friendly, dominant, dramatic, and relaxed predicted charis-matic attributions across Holladay and Coombs’s (1993, 1994) two experiments. Forthe purposes of this study, only these styles were utilized, resulting in the 15-itemscale listed in Table 1.

Because the primary elements of charismatic delivery have not been extensivelyvalidated, we again performed a principal components EFA with varimax rotation,which yielded the two-factor solution reported in Table 1. Examination of the twofactors revealed one factor consisting of friendly, attentive, and relaxed; Factor 2included items reflecting a dramatic and dominant delivery style. Alphas for thefriendly, attentive, and relaxed delivery style were .87 for Davis, .87 for Bustamante,and .86 for Schwarzenegger. Alphas for the dramatic and dominant delivery stylewere .84 for Davis, .82 for Bustamante, and .83 for Schwarzenegger.

Background and control variablesParty identification is also likely to play an important role in attributions of charismaand expected effectiveness. In the absence of any compelling reasons to do


332

Table 1 EFA of charismatic delivery items

Davis Schwarzenegger Bustamante

F1 F2 F1 F2 F1 F2

Friendly, Attentive, and Relaxed1. Maintains eye contact with the audience .54 .25 .55 .24 .51 .072. Is fluent in his speaking style .68 .24 .55 .25 .79 .073. Is an open communicator .69 .35 .70 .23 .71 .384. Is articulate .76 .20 .74 .16 .73 .055. Is relaxed .71 .12 .73 –.06 .70 .006. Is a very good communicator .82 .24 .80 .07 .84 .247. Is a friendly communicator .76 .13 .83 –.01 .78 .23

Dramatic and Dominant8. Has an assertive voice .33 .58 .34 .64 .27 .589. Is vocally a loud communicator .39 .48 .43 .49 .36 .39

10. Dramatizes a lot .03 .82 –.05 .83 .05 .7211. Uses a lot of facial expressions .36 .64 .23 .67 .19 .7512. Uses a lot of hand gestures .21 .52 .12 .57 .03 .6813. Is dramatic .22 .84 .12 .86 .20 .7714. Is expressive .56 .60 .56 .59 .56 .5715. Leaves an impression on people .35 .44 .26 .65 .38 .70

Eigenvalues 6.56 1.39 6.02 2.06 6.33 1.84



otherwise, a voter’s natural tendency is to vote for candidates of the party with whichhe or she identifies (Pillai et al., 2003). Shamir’s (1994) study of the 1992 Israelielections demonstrates that a voter’s ideological position strongly influences aleader’s perceived charisma. In addition, Pillai et al.’s (2003) findings suggest thatvoters are more likely to evaluate a leader from their own political party as charis-matic or transformational, and party affiliation has an important influence on votingbehavior (see also Pillai & Williams, 1998). Overall, this evidence suggests thatvoters are likely to support and identify with a leader who articulates a vision thatadvances their party’s agenda.

For this reason, the questionnaire also included questions assessing political partyaffiliation, voting intentions, prior voting behavior, ideology, and frequency ofreading the newspaper, watching news on television, and visiting news-relatedwebsites. Respondents indicated their party affiliation as Democratic, Republican,Independent, or other, and indicated their intent to vote in the recall election andwhether they had previously voted for Davis.

Responses to frequency of media exposure were dichotomized to form a singlemeasure of news media exposure (0 = combined television, web, or newspaperexposure is less than several times per week; versus 1 = combined television, web,or newspaper exposure is more than several times per week; M = .78; SD = .41).Participants also completed five general political knowledge items adopted fromKathlene (1989): (1) if they voted in the last election; (2) what political partycurrently has the most members in the US Senate; (3) the length of term of office fora US Senator; (4) the number of US Senators; and (5) what percentage of US Senatorsare women. Participants’ responses were dichotomously coded and added togetherto create a knowledge score ranging from 0 = no questions correct (not very knowl-edgeable) to 5 = all questions correct (very knowledgeable). The average knowledgescore was 1.93 (SD = 1.37). Finally, participants were asked to respond to standarddemographic questions, including age, sex (coded 1 = male and 0 = female), andethnicity (coded as 1 = white and 0 = all others).

ANOVAs revealed differences between participants from the large publicuniversity and the small private university on political ideology and candidate ratings.Further analyses revealed significant relationships among age, gender, ethnicity,political knowledge, political affiliation, ideology, and media exposure on thedependent variables. Because we are broadly interested in how overall perceptionsof the current situation, leadership characteristics, and follower perceptionscontributed to attributions of charisma and expected effectiveness, we included thesebackground variables as controls in our analyses.

ResultsDescriptive statistics and intercorrelations of key variables are listed in Tables 2 to4. Mean perceptions of crisis were 5.44 out of 7 (SD = .95), indicating many respon-dents agreed with media accounts that the state of California was currently in a stateof crisis at the time of the recall election. Alternately, this result may also indicatethat the media successfully created the perception of crisis, regardless of the actualstate of affairs. We found no significant effects based on the sequence of presentationof the videotapes.


333



Leadersh

ip1(3) A

rticles

334

Table 2 Descriptive statistics and correlations for Davis

Variables Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1. Age 26.97 7.12 .—2. Gender .48 .50 .00 .—3. Ethnicity .54 .50 .19 .03 .—4. School 1.12 .33 .09 –.10 .03 .—5. Media exposure .78 .41 .13 .07 –.04 –.02 .—6. Political knowledge 1.93 1.37 .25 .19 .20 .04 .17 .—7. Political ideology 3.60 1.20 –.03 –.17 –.13 .16 .05 –.09 .—8. Political affil. Dem. .31 .46 .00 –.17 –.13 .16 –.01 .05 .43 .—9. Prior vote: Davis .18 .38 .20 –.03 .12 .01 .02 .24 .22 .38 .—

10. Vote Davis .20 .40 .20 –.03 .04 .01 –.02 .13 .30 .26 .47 .—11. Crisis 5.44 .95 –.01 –.05 .02 –.02 .04 –.06 –.23 –.15 –.19 –.23 .—12. RLS 4.88 .88 –.11 –.04 –.18 –.05 .12 –.18 –.08 –.09 –.13 –.26 .45 .—13. Friendly delivery 4.02 1.05 –.01 –.03 –.07 .02 .00 –.11 .11 .09 .07 .15 .06 .06 .—14. Dramatic delivery 3.48 .89 –.10 .00 –.11 –.15 –.04 –.10 .06 .02 .05 .11 –.03 .03 .69 .—15. Charisma 3.79 1.04 –.03 .01 –.04 .03 –.03 –.05 .02 .10 .15 .22 –.10 .00 .56 .57 .—16. Effectiveness 3.17 1.44 .03 –.05 –.08 .16 –.04 –.04 .28 .25 .24 .33 –.30 –.14 .42 .37 .60 .—

Note: Df = 309. Correlations greater than .11 are significant at p < .05, and correlations greater than .15 are significant at p < .01. ©

2005 SA

GE

Pu

blicatio

ns. A

ll righ

ts reserved. N

ot fo

r com

mercial u

se or u

nau

tho

rized d

istribu

tion

. by T

omislav B

unjevac on August 6, 2008

http://lea.sagepub.comD

ownloaded from


Leadersh

ipThe C

alifornia Recall ElectionBligh et al.

335

Table 3 Descriptive statistics and correlations for Schwarzenegger


1. Age 26.97 7.12 .—2. Gender .48 .50 .00 .—3. Ethnicity .54 .50 .19 .03 .—4. School 1.12 .33 .09 –.10 .03 .—5. Media exposure .78 .41 .13 .07 –.04 –.02 .—6. Political knowledge 1.93 1.37 .25 .19 .20 .04 .17 .—7. Political ideology 3.60 1.20 –.03 –.17 –.13 .16 .05 –.09 .—8. Political affil. Rep. .37 .48 .00 .09 .26 –.13 –.01 .09 –.45 .—9. Prior vote: Davis .18 .38 .20 –.03 .12 .01 .02 .24 .22 –.29 .—

10. Vote Schwarzenegger .46 .50 –.01 .21 .24 –.15 .07 .13 –.30 .43 –.20 .—11. Crisis 5.44 .95 –.01 –.05 .02 –.02 .04 –.06 –.23 .22 –.19 .06 .—12. RLS 4.88 .88 –.11 –.04 –.18 –.05 .12 –.18 –.08 .16 –.13 –.01 .45 .—13. Friendly delivery 5.17 .93 –.02 –.05 .14 –.05 –.02 .08 –.09 .23 –.11 .32 .17 .17 .—14. Dramatic delivery 5.37 .85 .12 .03 .17 .16 –.02 .14 .00 .13 –.10 .16 .12 –.12 .56 .—15. Charisma 5.16 .94 –.01 .10 .12 –.06 .03 .09 –.18 .21 –.24 .39 .15 .11 .57 .52 .—16. Effectiveness 4.47 1.39 –.12 .12 .12 –.12 .00 .00 –.25 .41 –.28 .59 .23 .19 .58 .32 .60 .—

Note: Df = 309. Correlations greater than .11 are significant at p < .05, and correlations greater than .15 are significant at p < .01.

©

2005 SA

GE

Pu

blicatio

ns. A

ll righ

ts reserved. N

ot fo

r com

mercial u

se or u

nau

tho

rized d

istribu

tion

. by T

omislav B



ownloaded from


Leadersh

ip1(3) A

rticles

336

Table 4 Descriptive statistics and correlations for Bustamante


1. Age 26.97 7.12 .—2. Gender .48 .50 .00 .—3. Ethnicity .54 .50 .19 .03 .—4. School 1.12 .33 .09 –.10 .03 .—5. Media exposure .78 .41 .13 .07 –.04 –.02 .—6. Political knowledge 1.93 1.37 .25 .19 .20 .04 .17 .—7. Political ideology 3.60 1.20 –.03 –.17 –.13 .16 .05 –.09 .—8. Political affil. Dem. .31 .46 .00 –.17 –.13 .16 –.01 .05 .43 .—9. Prior vote: Davis .18 .38 .20 –.03 .12 .01 .02 .24 .22 .38 .—

10. Vote Bustamante .16 .36 .11 –.10 –.17 .05 –.07 .07 .26 .37 .32 .—11. Crisis 5.44 .95 –.01 –.05 .02 –.02 .04 –.06 –.23 –.15 –.19 –.19 .—12. RLS 4.88 .88 –.11 –.04 –.18 –.05 .12 –.18 –.08 –.09 –.13 –.04 .45 .—13. Friendly delivery 5.26 .87 –.02 –.06 –.05 .12 .00 .02 .24 .18 .09 .37 –.05 –.04 .—14. Dramatic delivery 3.95 .95 .02 –.11 –.11 .07 .02 –.05 .20 .12 .03 .27 –.04 .03 .62 .—15. Charisma 4.67 1.04 –.05 –.15 –.09 .10 –.03 –.05 .29 .30 .12 .41 –.14 –.04 .66 .64 .—16. Effectiveness 4.01 1.47 –.06 –.10 –.25 .09 –.10 –.15 .39 .33 .11 .50 –.25 –.05 .56 .47 .74 .—

Note: Df = 309. Correlations greater than .11 are significant at p < .05, and correlations greater than .15 are significant at p < .01. ©

2005 SA

GE

Pu

blicatio

ns. A

ll righ

ts reserved. N

ot fo

r com

mercial u

se or u

nau

tho

rized d

istribu

tion

. by T

omislav B



ownloaded from


Hypothesis 1 stated that both challengers would be rated as more charismatic thanthe incumbent. Results indicate that this was indeed the case. The outside challengerwas rated as significantly more charismatic than both the incumbent (MD = 1.37,SD = 1.50, (t(308) = 16.82, p < .001) and the incumbent party challenger (MD =.49,SD = 1.45, (t(309) = 5.93, p < .001). In addition, the incumbent party challenger wasrated as significantly more charismatic than the incumbent (MD = .88, SD = 1.30,(t(309) = 11.84, p < .001). Thus, Hypothesis 1 is strongly supported.

In order to examine the remaining hypotheses, we conducted hierarchical regres-sions comprising four steps for each of the candidates (see Tables 5 to 8). Step 1examined the effects of the demographic control variables (age, gender, ethnicity, andschool). Step 2 added the effects of political knowledge, exposure to news media,party affiliation, political ideology, prior voting, and intent to vote. Step 3 added the


337

Table 5 Hierarchical regression results for Davisa

DependentModel 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Variable Independent Variable Beta SE B Beta SE B Beta SE B Beta SE B

Charisma Age –.06 .01 –.10 .01 –.05 .01 –.05 .01Gender –.01 .12 .01 .13 .00 .10 .01 .10Ethnicity –.01 .13 –.00 .13 .04 .10 .05 .10School .04 .18 .05 .18 .10† .15 .09† .15Media exposure .00 .15 .01 .12 .00 .12Political knowledge –.09 .05 –.03 .04 –.02 .04Political ideology –.09 .06 –.16** .05 –.16** .05Political affiliation: Dem. .06 .15 .06 .12 .06 .12Prior vote: Davis .07 .19 .03 .15 .03 .15Intent to vote: Davis .25*** .17 .16** .14 .16** .14Crisis –.15** .06 –.17** .06Romance of leadership .07 .06 .07 .06Friendly delivery .31*** .06 .31*** .06Dramatic delivery .35*** .08 .34*** .08Crisis X RLS –.07 .04

Rs .00 .08 .44 .44F for change in Rs .31 3.85*** 42.69*** 1.77

Effectiveness Age .00 .01 –.05 .01 –.02 .01 –.02 .01Gender –.05 .17 –.01 .16 –.02 .14 –.01 .14Ethnicity –.07 .17 –.03 .17 –.00 .15 .00 .15School .17** .25 .14*** .23 .16** .21 .16** .21Media exposure –.04 .20 –.03 .18 –.03 .18Political knowledge –.06 .06 –.03 .06 –.03 .06Political ideology .12 .08 .05 .07 .05 .07Political affiliation: Dem. .10† .20 .10† .18 .10† .18Prior vote: Davis .07 .25 .04 .22 .04 .22Intent to vote: Davis .28*** .23 .19*** .21 .19*** .21Crisis –.27*** .09 –.28*** .09Romance of leadership .03 .09 .03 .09Friendly delivery .26*** .09 .26*** .09Dramatic delivery .16* .11 .16* .11Crisis X RLS –.05 .06

Rs .04 .21 .40 .40F for change in Rs 2.52* 9.99*** 20.84*** .77

a N = 311. Beta coefficients are standardized.† p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.



main effects of crisis perceptions, delivery styles, and the Romance of LeadershipScale. Finally, Step 4 added the hypothesized moderator effect (Crisis X RLS).Following the procedure outlined in Villa et al. (2003), we first standardized eachvariable and then constructed a cross product that was entered into Step 4 of eachregression. Thus, the regression analyses consider the potentially confounding effectsof all control variables before assessing main effects and the potential moderatingeffects of crisis perceptions. Increments in R2, changes in F, and standardized betaswere examined to determine if significant variance is accounted for by the additionof the moderated variables (Rs2 – Rs1; see Cohen & Cohen, 1983).

Hypothesis 2a stated that perceptions of a state of crisis would be significantlyrelated to ratings of charisma. Results indicate that crisis perceptions significantly


338

Table 6 Hierarchical regression results for Schwarzeneggera



Charisma Age –.05 .01 –.03 .01 –.05 .01 –.05 .01Gender .11† .12 .02 .15 .06 .09 .05 .09Ethnicity .14* .12 .01 .15 .04 .10 .02 .10School –.05 .17 –.01 .21 –.05 .13 –.05 .13Media exposure .04 .17 .06 .11 .07 .11Political knowledge .10 .06 .04 .04 .03 .04Political ideology .00 .07 –.08 .04 –.09 .04Political affiliation: Rep. –.01 .18 –.08 .11 –.08 .11Prior vote: Davis –.19** .21 –.14** .13 –.14** .13Intent to vote:

Schwarzenegger .34*** .16 .21*** .10 .20*** .10Crisis –.06 .05 –.03 .05Romance of leadership .12* .06 .13* .06Friendly delivery .28*** .06 .27*** .06Dramatic delivery .37*** .07 .38*** .07Crisis X RLS .13* .04

Rs .04 .21 .50 .52F for change in Rs 2.44* 9.20*** 37.03*** 7.36**

Effectiveness Age –.14* .01 –.09 .01 –.09† .01 –.09* .01Gender .12† .17 .02 .15 .07† .10 .07 .12Ethnicity .14* .18 .01 .15 –.02 .10 –.03 .13School –.12† .26 –.03 .21 –.03 .13 –.03 .18Media exposure –.01 .17 .01 .11 .01 .15Political knowledge –.04 .06 –.07 .04 –.08† .05Political ideology –.01 .07 –.03 .04 –.03 .06Political affiliation: Rep. .17** .18 .12* .11 .12* .15Prior vote: Davis –.11† .21 –.07 .13 –.07 .18Intent to vote:

Schwarzenegger .49*** .16 .37*** .10 .36*** .14Crisis .07 .05 .08† .07Romance of leadership .02 .06 .03 .08Friendly delivery .37*** .06 .37*** .08Dramatic delivery .09† .07 .09† .09Crisis X RLS .06 .05

Rs .06 .41 .59 .59F for change in Rs 4.43** 25.50*** 26.74*** 1.90

a N = 311. Beta coefficients are standardized. † p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.



and negatively influenced perceptions of charisma for the incumbent (b = –.17, p <.01) but were not significant predictors of charisma for the incumbent partychallenger (b = –.06, p = .21) or the outside challenger (b = –.03, p = .61). Thus,Hypothesis 2a is only partially supported, suggesting that perceptions of crisisnegatively impacted perceptions of the charisma of the current leadership.

Results indicate that perceptions of a state of crisis significantly influencedexpectations of effectiveness for all three candidates (Hypothesis 2b). In the case ofthe incumbent party candidates, there was a significant negative effect (Davis: b =–.28, p < .001, Bustamante: b = –.18, p < .001); however, this effect was positivefor the outside challenger (Schwarzenegger: b = .08, p < .10). Hypothesis 2b isthus supported: perceptions of crisis were negatively associated with expected


339

Table 7 Hierarchical regression results for Bustamantea



Charisma Age –.04 .01 –.06 .01 –.04 .01 –.04 .01Gender –.15* .13 –.07 .12 –.04 .09 –.04 .09Ethnicity –.09 .13 .02 .12 .01 .09 .02 .09School .08 .19 .02 .18 –.01 .13 –.01 .13Media exposure –.01 .15 –.01 .11 –.01 .11Political knowledge –.01 .05 –.07 .04 –.06 .04Political ideology .12† .06 –.00 .04 .00 .04Political affiliation: Dem. .17* .15 .16*** .11 .16*** .11Prior vote: Davis –.08 .18 –.03 .13 –.02 .13Intent to vote:

Bustamante .35*** .18 .14** .14 .14** .14Crisis –.04 .05 –.06 .05Romance of leadership –.04 .06 –.04 .06Friendly delivery .36*** .07 .36*** .07Dramatic delivery .35*** .06 .35*** .06Crisis X RLS –.09* .04

Rs .04 .25 .59 .61F for change in Rs 2.91* 11.68*** 52.64*** 4.02*

Effectiveness Age –.03 .01 –.03 .01 –.01 .01 –.01 .01Gender –.09 .18 .02 .15 .03 .13 .03 .13Ethnicity –.26*** .18 –.13* .16 –.14** .14 –.13** .14School .08 .27 .01 .23 –.01 .19 –.02 .19Media exposure –.08 .19 –.07 .16 –.08† .16Political knowledge –.09 .06 –.11* .05 –.10* .05Political ideology .25*** .07 .14** .06 .14** .06Political affiliation: Dem. .13* .19 .14** .17 .14** .17Prior vote: Davis –.05 .22 –.04 .19 –.03 .19Intent to vote:

Bustamante .39*** .23 .22*** .21 .22*** .21Crisis –.16*** .08 –.18*** .08Romance of leadership –.01 .08 –.01 .08Friendly delivery .29*** .10 .29*** .10Dramatic delivery .19*** .08 .18*** .08Crisis X RLS –.07 .06

Rs .09 .40 .57 .57F for change in Rs 6.43*** 22.24*** 24.90*** 2.67




effectiveness of the current leadership and positively associated with the outside chal-lenger’s expected effectiveness.

In Hypothesis 3a, we predicted that tendencies to attribute outcomes to leaders(high scores on the RLS) would be significantly related to perceptions of charismaticleadership. This was only the case for the outside challenger, indicating that thoseindividuals who were more likely to attribute outcomes to leaders were also (perhapsoptimistically) more likely to see charismatic attributes in the potential incomingleadership (Davis: b = .07, p = .23; Schwarzenegger: b =.13, p < .05; Bustamante:b = –.04, p = .40). The RLS was not significantly related to ratings of expected


340

Table 8 Final model hierarchical regression results for all three candidates


Dependent Variable Independent Variable Beta SE B Beta SE B Beta SE B

Charisma Age –.05 .01 –.05 .01 –.04 .01Gender .01 .10 .05 .09 –.04 .09Ethnicity .05 .10 .02 .10 .01 .09School .09† .15 –.05 .13 –.01 .13Media exposure .00 .12 .07 .11 –.01 .11Political knowledge –.02 .04 .03 .04 –.07 .04Political ideology –.16** .05 –.09 .04 –.00 .04Political affiliation .06 .12 –.08 .11 .16*** .11Prior vote .03 .15 –.14** .13 –.03 .13Intent to vote .16** .14 .20*** .10 .14** .14Crisis –.17** .06 –.03 .05 –.04 .05Romance of leadership .07 .06 .13* .06 –.04 .06Friendly delivery .31*** .06 .27*** .06 .36*** .07Dramatic delivery .34*** .08 .38*** .07 .35*** .06Crisis X RLS –.07 .04 .13* .04

Rs .44 .52 .59F for change in Rs 1.77 7.36** 52.64***


Dependent Variable Independent Variable Beta SE B Beta SE B Beta SE B

Effectiveness Age –.02 .01 –.09† .01 –.01 .01Gender –.01 .14 .07† .10 .03 .13Ethnicity .00 .15 –.02 .10 –.14** .14School .16** .21 –.03 .13 –.01 .19Media exposure –.03 .18 .01 .11 –.07 .16Political knowledge –.03 .06 –.07 .04 –.11* .05Political ideology .05 .07 –.03 .04 .14** .06Political affiliation. .10† .18 .12* .11 .14** .17Prior vote .04 .22 –.07 .13 –.04 .19Intent to vote .19*** .21 .37*** .10 .22*** .21Crisis –.28*** .09 .07 .05 –.16*** .08Romance of leadership .03 .09 .02 .06 –.01 .08Friendly delivery .26*** .09 .37*** .06 .29*** .10Dramatic delivery .16* .11 .09† .07 .19*** .08Crisis X RLS –.05 .06

Rs .40 .59 .57F for change in Rs .77 26.74*** 24.90***




effectiveness for any of the candidates (Davis: b = .03, p = .61; Schwarzenegger:b = .03, p = .65; Bustamante: b = –.01, p = .86), providing no support forHypothesis 3b.

In Hypotheses 4, we predicted that increased perceptions of crisis wouldstrengthen the relationship between the RLS and attributions of charisma andexpected effectiveness for all candidates. We found two significant moderator effects,explaining an additional 2 per cent of the variance in charisma for both challengers(Schwarzenegger: b = .13, p < .05; Bustamante: b = –.09, p < .05). Thus, there waspartial support for Hypothesis 4. The moderating effect of perceptions of crisis onthe RLS and charismatic perceptions for all three candidates is shown in Figure 1(A to C) (based on Aiken & West, 1991). To aid the interpretation of the interactionterm, we used a median split to divide the sample into high and low perceptions ofcrisis. Figure 1(B) suggests that in the case of the outside challenger, individuals withhigh perceptions of crisis and higher scores on the RLS were more likely to see himas charismatic. This relationship disappears, however, for voters who did not perceivethe state was in a crisis. In the case of the incumbent party challenger, however, highperceptions of crisis and higher RLS scores were associated with lower charismascores; again, this relationship disappeared for respondents with lower perceptionsof crisis (see Figure 1(C)).

Hypothesis 5a stated that higher levels of charismatic delivery in the candidates’speeches would be associated with higher ratings of charisma. Results indicate thata friendly, attentive, and relaxed delivery style was strongly related to subsequentcharismatic attributions for all three candidates, even after controlling for all otherfactors (Davis: b = .31, p < .001; Schwarzenegger: b = .27, p < .001; Bustamante:b = .36, p < .001). In addition, a dramatic and dominant delivery style was signifi-cantly associated with charismatic attributions for all three candidates (Davis: b =.34, p < .001; Schwarzenegger: b = .38, p < .001; Bustamante: b = .35, p < .001).Hypothesis 5b proposed that higher levels of charismatic delivery would also beassociated with higher ratings of expected effectiveness. Analyses revealed that afriendly, attentive, and relaxed delivery style was significantly associated withexpected effectiveness for all three candidates (Davis: b = .26, p < .001;Schwarzenegger: b = .37, p < .001; Bustamante: b = .29, p < .001). In addition, adramatic and dominant style was also related to perceptions of likely effectivenessin office for all three candidates (Davis: b = .16, p < .05; Schwarzenegger: b = .09,p < .10; Bustamante: b = .18, p < .001). Thus, Hypotheses 5a and 5b are supported.

DiscussionShamir and Howell (1999) contend that ‘the literature on charismatic leadership hasneglected the organizational context in which such leadership is embedded’ (p. 257).The 2003 California recall election is an interesting contextual backdrop againstwhich to examine the role of situational influences, follower characteristics, andleadership delivery styles on perceptions of charisma and effectiveness. Weconducted the study immediately prior to a historical Gubernatorial recall election,in a crisis situation with real leaders and followers who were faced with a veryimportant choice that directly impacted California’s leadership. Thus, we feel thisstudy provides important theoretical insights into the relationships among crisis,


341




342

Davis

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Romance of Leadership Scale

Linear (Low Crisis)

Linear (High Crisis)

Ch

ari

sm

a

Schwarzenegger

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Ch

ari

sm

a


Linear (Low Crisis)


Bustamante

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


Ch

ari

sm

a

Linear (Low Crisis)


(A)

(B)

(C)

Figure 1 Moderating influence of perceptions of crisis on the relationship between RLS andcharisma



delivery style, and charisma in a real life context with significant consequences forfollowers. Specifically, we will highlight the potential theoretical contributions of ourstudy for the following areas:

1. The importance of situational influences on charismatic attributions;

2. The relationship between crisis and charisma;

3. Potential moderators of the relationship between delivery style and charisma(including social distance, gender, culture, and leader experience);

4. Situational influences on tendencies to attribute outcomes to leaders (theRLS);

5. The relationship between charisma and effectiveness.

The fact that both challengers were rated as more charismatic across all potentialvoters (Hypothesis 1) provides preliminary support for Shamir and Howell’s (1999)propositions concerning the importance of contextual influences on charismaticleadership emergence. Specifically, low organizational performance and the desirefor new leadership, coupled with an incumbent leader with little charismatic appeal,created a fertile ground for charismatic emergence in the challengers. In addition,perceptions of crisis were significantly associated with decreased ratings of charismaand effectiveness for the incumbent leadership (Hypotheses 2a and 2b), suggestingthat voters who perceived a crisis situation in California were less likely to see theGovernor as a strong, charismatic leader who was capable of turning the perform-ance of the state around. Thus, our results are only partially consistent with previousresearch findings that suggest perceptions of crisis create a fertile ground forattributions of charisma. In fact, in the case of current leaders facing lower levels ofperformance than expected, a crisis situation may actually lead to decreasedperceptions of charisma, as followers place the blame for the crisis on the incumbentleadership (see also Pillai & Meindl, 1998).

Despite individual differences in the communication style of each of the threecandidates, our results suggest two important components of delivery style arerelevant to charismatic leadership: a friendly, attentive, and relaxed style, and adramatic and dominant style. Further research should continue to work toward thedevelopment of reliable and valid scales to measure charismatic delivery across awide variety of leadership situations. Specifically, existing theory may inadequatelyaddress the relative importance of these two delivery components across situationsof varying social distance (Shamir, 1995). It is possible that our findings reflectingthe importance of a dramatic and dominant style may be a function of the largesocial distance between the Gubernatorial candidates and the voters. For example, adramatic and dominant style may not be well received by subordinates of middle andlower level managers, or such a style may be called for in the context of visionarymessages but not in everyday interactions. It is also likely that during a crisis, whenfollowers are psychologically aroused, they are more likely to be receptive to adelivery style that is dramatic and dominant.

In addition, current theory largely neglects the role of gender in the relationshipbetween delivery style and charismatic attributions. It may well be that certain expec-tations of delivery style become attached to male and female leaders, and theseexpectations may also be different for male and female followers. Similarly, a


343



dramatic and dominant style may be less appropriate in some cultural contexts, asthis type of influence may be viewed as inappropriate or too individualistic in morecollectivistic cultures. Together, characteristics of the leader and the situation maythus importantly influence the type of delivery style that is most predictive ofcharismatic attributions.

Our findings also suggest further theoretical development concerning anotherimportant factor: leader experience. Specifically, future research should examine thestrength and consistency of the relationship between delivery style, charisma andeffectiveness across leaders with varying levels of experience, tenure, and establishedpublic leadership records. Charismatic delivery may be more strongly related to theseratings in the case of new, relatively unknown leaders than leaders with longer tenureand well-publicized stories of success and failure in the popular press. Wherecandidates or executives are less well known, charismatic delivery style may be morecritical in influencing attributions of charisma and effectiveness than in the case ofcandidates and executives with well-known track records.

Our findings are also relevant to theoretical and empirical work regarding theRLS, which was not significantly related to perceptions of leader charisma andeffectiveness across all three candidates (with the exception of charismatic ratingsof Schwarzenegger). The RLS was initially developed to assess dispositionaltendencies to attribute outcomes to leaders. However, a number of situational factorsmay have influenced scores on the RLS, and Meindl (1995) suggests that crisis situ-ations and performance cues may be two important input factors. In our analyses, thestrong correlation between perceptions of crisis and the RLS (r = .45, p < .001)suggests that the two variables are significantly related. One explanation for thesefindings is that the situational effect of the crisis was so strong that it overrode theeffect of the RLS on the dependent variables. In other words, the effect of the crisissituation may have cued increased attributions of charisma and effectiveness,regardless of an individual’s dispositional tendencies.

Another possibility is that the recall election itself acted as a strong performancecue for voters. The fact that the recall election was precipitated during a time of lowperformance in the state of California may have influenced voters to assign moreblame for that performance onto the current leadership. In the context of an election– particularly the special context of a recall election less than a year after the currentleadership was elected to a second term – the low performance of the state is likelyto be particularly salient, as are attributions that leadership must be at least partiallyto blame. Taken together, our findings suggest that the RLS may be more situation-ally influenced than has previously been thought (see also Awamleh & Gardner,1999), and future research may benefit from examining the extent to which scoreson the RLS are impacted by various aspects of the situation. Specifically, contextualinfluences proposed by Shamir and Howell (1999), such as leader hierarchical level,organizational performance, or weak versus strong situations might be combinedwith longitudinal RLS measures to assess the extent to which different situationscreate different degrees of follower readiness for charismatic leadership.

Finally, it is important to comment on the relationship between the two dependentvariables in this study, charisma and expected effectiveness. Theoretically, these twoconstructs are quite distinct, and they have been separately defined and measured inmany empirical studies of leadership (Atwater et al., 1997; Awamleh & Gardner,


344



1999; Deluga, 1998, 2001). Operationally, however, particularly when researchersassess followers’ attributions of charisma and expected effectiveness, they are likelyto be less distinct. As we found in the current study, there may often be a strong haloeffect, in that candidates who followers perceive as more charismatic tend to be thesame leaders that they expect to be effective. This relationship reflects another typeof ‘romance of leadership’ (Meindl et al., 1985) in which followers confronted with‘charismatic leaders’ are likely to attribute higher performance to them as well. Inmany ways, this theoretical distinction may parallel the ongoing discussion concern-ing management and leadership that has been extensively discussed in the leadershipliterature. As followers, particularly in a crisis situation, we seem to crave bothcharismatic leaders as well as effective managers: that is, leaders who can both ‘savethe day’ and ‘get the job done’.

Limitations and directions for future research

Although some may argue that the Schwarzenegger phenomenon is unique to thisparticular situation, our results underscore a long tradition in the crisis and charismaliterature that has documented the yearning for a charismatic ‘larger than life’person-ality in a crisis (for example FDR and Churchill during WWII, Juan Perón inArgentina, Lee Iacocca during the Chrysler crisis; see also Willner, 1984). Currentexamples can be found in the business realm as well: when the CEO of Motorola,Chris Galvin, recently stepped down in the midst of a downturn for the legendaryorganization, the business press called for a ‘charismatic’ leader who would turnaround the company’s fortunes (see Maney, 2003; Wolinsky, 2003). Historically,California has been receptive to larger than life movie star charismatic candidates(e.g. Ronald Reagan’s two terms as California’s Governor), and internationally, it isnot uncommon for movie stars to be in politics (see Rimban, 2002), suggesting thatthe Arnold Schwarzenegger situation is not entirely unique. In light of theseexamples, we feel that having a personality like Schwarzenegger as a challenger tothe incumbent only served to highlight this aspect of the relationship between crisisand charisma in a real world setting. This study is one of the few attempts to examinethe effects of a crisis on charismatic perceptions of both incumbent and challengersin a naturally occurring environment, and provides additional evidence that follow-ers’ desire for a post-crisis charismatic personality is a fairly prevalent and general-izable phenomenon.

In the context of the current backlash against charismatic CEOs in the wake ofrecent corporate scandals (e.g. Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom, Calisto Tanzi ofParmalat, Jean Marie Messier of Vivendi Universal) and the emphasis on humility-based Level 5 leadership (Collins, 2001), it is interesting to note that charismaticleaders are still seen as possible saviors in a crisis situation. Other business situationsmay be profitably examined in light of our findings as well, such as times of post-merger leadership change, CEO succession, or even managerial changes in middleand lower levels of the organization. It is easy to imagine situations in which loweredperformance and the desire for new leadership to replace a previously uncharismaticmanager may result in charismatic attributions at lower levels of the organization.New managers, trained in visioning and charismatic delivery style, might harness thisadvantageous situation to increase charismatic attributions and support from their


345



subordinates. Perhaps it is at this level where the power of charismatic leadership ismost underutilized and understudied.

However, it is important not to over-emphasize the potential generalizability ofcharismatic attributions in the US political process to everyday workplace dynamics,and findings from this preliminary study should be interpreted with caution. Thisstudy examined the views of voters rather than employees, and business leaders aretypically appointed rather than elected by popular vote. These differences may createcertain difficulties when seeking to transfer our arguments to other contexts; however,the increasing visibility of corporate executives necessitates leaders who are asinterpersonally effective, adept at communications, and politically skilled as theircounterparts running for public office, warranting some crossover between the tworealms (Kellerman, 2003).

Voters’ political affiliation and its possible relationship to perceptions of charismais another important consideration when interpreting our results. Only 21 per cent ofour sample stated that they were independent voters, suggesting that 79 per cent ofthe sample acknowledged some political preconceptions prior to rating the candi-dates. These followers were clearly not completely unbiased, and as a result may notbe willing to ascribe charisma impartially or as the result of merit alone. Charismais in the eye of the beholder, and it is likely that followers with a strong party affili-ation are more likely to develop a charismatic bond with a leader that they perceiveembodies the values they hold dear. As such, identification with a leader’s values,represented by party affiliation in the current study, is likely to drive ratings ofcharisma and expected effectiveness, consistent with previous research (Pillai et al.,2003; Pillai & Williams, 1998). Although we controlled for party affiliation in ouranalyses, future research might explore the consistency, robustness, and potentialexceptions to this tendency. Specifically, when are followers most susceptible to acharismatic leader whose political affiliation or background is different from theirown? How do followers resist the charismatic influence of leaders outside of theirpolitical party? And, when comparing candidates within the same party, does charis-matic content and delivery play an even greater role in attributions of charisma?

Future research should also examine different levels and types of crises, in orderto determine how crisis severity may influence perceptions of charisma. It is likelythat the greater the severity of the crisis, the more likely charismatic attributions willresult. In addition, further research into the relationships among different types ofcrisis and charisma is warranted. Coombs and Holladay (2002) distinguish types ofcrises by personal control, or leader’s ability to control the event, and crisis responsi-bility, or how much the leader is to blame for the event. These distinctions may beof critical importance in understanding how different types of crisis foster varyinglevels of charismatic attributions. For instance, a fiscal crisis that affects an indi-vidual’s livelihood may trigger the need for a charismatic savior more readily than apublic relations crisis engendered by an oil spill.

As in many real-world studies, the current research is somewhat hindered by thefact that incumbency, party, and personality differences in the three candidates couldnever realistically be systematically varied or controlled. Although Schwarzeneggercertainly qualifies as a trained actor in the action hero genre, our leaders were notinstructed to display elements of both high and low charismatic delivery styles in thepolitical realm, nor were the speeches they gave manipulated to be high or low in


346



charismatic content. In addition, our use of follower ratings as the sole method ofdata collection may raise the possibility of common-method bias. However, we feelthe situational realism afforded by our design more than compensates for theseshortcomings.

In addition, our study focused solely on charismatic delivery in influencingcharismatic attributions. Future research may benefit from the dual examination ofperceptions of content and delivery in real life situations, as well as a wider varietyof charismatic leader behaviors. In a closing statement, delivery style is a compara-tively richer source of information for assessing leaders, as followers are able toevaluate both verbal and non-verbal communication styles. On the other hand, overa longer time horizon the effects of charismatic content may be more dramatic, asfollowers are increasingly exposed to the leader’s vision and can more accuratelyevaluate its importance and relevance. Future studies might have different groups ofparticipants read, watch on video, and hear audio only of a variety of speeches totease out the effects of content, delivery, and their interaction across both close anddistant social situations.

Overall, our findings suggest that contextual elements play an important role infollower assessments of charismatic leadership and effectiveness. Despite varyinglevels of charisma across the three personalities, ratings of all three leaders wereinfluenced either directly or indirectly by the crisis situation in California. Theseresults suggest that in the context of a fallen leader and an unsuccessful adminis-tration, followers are increasingly receptive to an incoming leadership ‘hero’who canride in on the proverbial white horse (or perhaps Hummer in this case) and ‘save theday’. In the early stages of his administration, Schwarzenegger has been able tosustain enormous approval ratings and a bipartisan image as ‘an upstart and apolitical outsider’ who circumvents the legislature by bringing issues directly to thevoters (Barabak, 2005). It remains to be seen whether or not the new leader willcontinue to capitalize on this advantageous situation and his charismatic personalityto effectively resolve the crisis. Regardless of the outcome, charismatic leadershipresearchers should continue to explore the complex interrelationships among leaders,followers, and the situation in jointly determining the charismatic leadershiprelationship.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (eds) (1991) Multiple regression: Testing and InterpretingInteractions. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. A., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003) ‘Context and Leadership: AnExamination of the Nine-factor Full-range Leadership Theory Using the MultifactorLeadership Questionnaire’, The Leadership Quarterly 14(3): 261–95.

Atkinson, J. M. (1984) Our Masters’Voices: The Language and Body Language of Politics.London: Methuen.

Atwater, L. E., Camobreco, J. F., Dionne, S. D., & Avolio, B. J. (1997) ‘Effects of Rewardsand Punishments on Leader Charisma, Leader Effectiveness and Follower Reactions’,The Leadership Quarterly 8(2): 133–52.

Avolio, B. J., Waldman, D. A., & Einstein, W. O. (1988) ‘Transformational Leadership in aManagement Game Simulation’, Group & Organization Studies 13: 59–80.

Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. L. (1999) ‘Perceptions of Leader Charisma and Effectiveness:


347



The Effects of Vision Content, Delivery, and Organizational Performance’, TheLeadership Quarterly 10(3): 345–73.

Bailey, E. (2003) ‘A Distaste for Recall Could Help Save Davis’, The Los Angeles Times,23 July.

Balz, D. (2003) ‘California May Reset Political Compass’, The Washington Post, 5 October.Bandura, A. (2001) ‘Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective’, Annual Review of

Psychology 52: 1–26.Barabak, M. (2005) ‘Gov. Walks a Fine Line on Boundaries’, The Los Angeles Times,

5 January.Bass, B. M. (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free

Press.Bass, B. M. (1988) ‘Evolving Perspectives on Charismatic Leadership’, in J. A. Conger &

R. N. Kanungo (eds) Charismatic Leadership, pp. 40–77. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Bass, B.M. (1990) Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and

Managerial expectations. New York: Free Press.Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993) ‘Transformational Leadership: A Response to Critiques’,

in M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (eds) Leadership Theory and Research: Perspectives andDirections, pp. 49–80. New York: Academic Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995) Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire:Rater from (5X Short). Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.

Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985) Leaders: The Strategies of Taking Charge. San Francisco:HarperCollins.

Beyer, J. M. (1999a) ‘Taming and Promoting Charisma to Change Organizations’, TheLeadership Quarterly 10: 307–30.

Beyer, J. M. (1999b) ‘Two Approaches to Studying Charismatic Leadership: Competing orComplementary?’, The Leadership Quarterly 10: 575–88.

Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Meindl, J. R. (2004a) ‘Charisma Under Crisis: PresidentialLeadership, Rhetoric, and Media Responses Before and After the September 11thTerrorist Attacks’, The Leadership Quarterly 15(2): 211–39.

Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Meindl, J. R. (2004b) ‘Charting the Language of Leadership:A Methodological Investigation of President Bush and the Crisis of 9/11’, Journal ofApplied Psychology 89(3): 562–74.

Borowitz, A. (2003) ‘Gray Davis Evaporates, Becomes Fine Mist as Days in OfficeDwindle’. Available at: http://www.borowitzreport.com

Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995) ‘Further Assessments of Bass’s (1985)Conceptualization of Transactional and Transformational Leadership’, Journal of AppliedPsychology 30: 468–78.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for theBehavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Collins, J. (2001) Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap . . . and OthersDon’t. New York: HarperCollins.

Conger, J. A. (1989) The Charismatic Leader: Behind the Mystique of ExceptionalLeadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987) ‘Toward a Behavioral Theory of CharismaticLeadership in Organizational Settings’, Academy of Management Review 12: 637–47.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998) Charismatic Leadership in Organizations. ThousandOaks, CA: SAGE.

Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2002) ‘Helping Crisis Managers Protect ReputationalAssets’, Management Communication Quarterly 16(2): 165–87.

Deluga, R. J. (1998) ‘American Presidential Proactivity, Charismatic Leadership, and RatedPerformance’, The Leadership Quarterly 9(3): 265–91.


348



Deluga, R. J. (2001) ‘American Presidential Machiavellianism: Implications for CharismaticLeadership and Rated Performance’, The Leadership Quarterly 12(3): 339–63.

Den Hartog, D. N., & Verburg, R. M. (1997) ‘Charisma and Rhetoric: CommunicativeTechniques of International Business Leaders’, The Leadership Quarterly 8: 355–91.

Dvir, T., & Shamir, B. (2003) ‘Follower Developmental Characteristics as PredictingTransformational Leadership: A Longitudinal Field Study’, The Leadership Quarterly14(3): 327–44.

Ehrlich, S. B., Meindl, J. R., & Viellieu, B. (1990) ‘The Charismatic Appeal of aTransformational Leader: An Empirical Case Study of a Small, High-technologyContractor’, The Leadership Quarterly 1: 229–47.

Emrich, C. G., Brower, H. H., Feldman, J. M., & Garland, H. (2001) ‘Images in Words:Presidential Rhetoric, Charisma, and Greatness’, Administrative Science Quarterly 46:527–57.

Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998) ‘The Charismatic Relationship: A DramaturgicalPerspective’, Academy of Management Review 23: 32–58.

Grusky, O. (1963) ‘Managerial Succession and Organizational Effectiveness’, AmericanJournal of Sociology 69: 21–31.

Halverson, S. K., Murphy, S. E., & Riggio, R. E. (2004) ‘Charismatic Leadership in CrisisSituations: A Laboratory Investigation of Stress and Crisis’, Small Group Research 35(5):495–515.

Harper, T. (2003) ‘Recall Pits Strong Man Against Weak Governor’, The Toronto Star,1 October.

Heritage, J., & Greatbatch, D. (1986) ‘Generating Applause: A Study of Rhetoric andResponse at Party Political Conferences’, American Sociological Review 92: 110–57.

Holladay, S. J., & Coombs, W. T. (1993) ‘Communicating Visions: An Exploration of theRole of Delivery in the Creation of Leader Charisma’, Management CommunicationQuarterly 6: 405–27.

Holladay, S. J., & Coombs, W. T. (1994) ‘Speaking of Visions and Visions Being Spoken: AnExploration of the Effects of Content and Delivery on Perceptions of Leader Charisma’,Management Communication Quarterly 8: 165–89.

House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., & Woycke, J. (1991) ‘Personality and Charisma in the USPresidency: A Psychological Theory of Leader Effectiveness’, Administrative ScienceQuarterly 36: 364–95.

House, R. J., Woycke, J., & Fodor, E. M. (1988) ‘Charismatic and Noncharismatic Leaders:Differences in Behavior and Effectiveness’ in J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (eds)Charismatic Leadership, pp. 98–121. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Howell, J. M., & Frost, P. J. (1989) ‘A Laboratory Study of Charismatic Leadership’,Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 43: 243–69.

Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. J. (2001) Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons ofExperience. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hunt, J. G., Boal, K. B., & Dodge, G. E. (1999) ‘The Effects of Visionary and Crisis-responsive Charisma on Followers: An Experimental Examination of Two Kinds ofCharismatic Leadership’, The Leadership Quarterly 10(3): 423–48.

Kathlene, L. (1989) ‘Uncovering the Political Impacts of Gender: An Exploratory Study’,Western Political Quarterly 42: 397–421.

Kellerman, B. (2003) One Expert’s Opinion: Business and Public Leaders Have Much inCommon. Available at: http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/experts/2003/kellerman_leadership_111903.htm

Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996) ‘Direct and Indirect Effects of Three CoreCharismatic Leadership Components on Performance and Attitudes’, Journal of AppliedPsychology 81(1): 36–51.


349



Klein, K. J., & House, R. J. (1995) ‘On Fire: Charismatic Leadership and Levels ofAnalysis’, The Leadership Quarterly 6: 183–98.

Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991) Leadership and Informational Processing: LinkingPerceptions and Performance. Boston, MA: Unwin-Hyman.

Lupia, A. (2003) ‘Are the State’s Voters up to the Task?’, The Los Angeles Times, 7 October,B13.

Madsen, D., & Snow, P. G. (1991) The Charismatic Bond: Political Behavior in Time ofCrisis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Maney, K. (2003) ‘Motorola’s Former CEO Might Have Failed, but He’s a Good Guy’, USAToday, 24 September, 3B.

Meindl, J. R. (1990) ‘On Leadership: An Alternative to the Conventional Wisdom’, Researchin Organizational Behavior 12: 159–203.

Meindl, J. R. (1993) ‘Reinventing Leadership: A Radical, Social Psychological Approach’, inK. Murnighan (ed.) Social Psychology in Organizations: Advances in Theory andResearch, pp. 89–118. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Meindl, J. R. (1995) ‘The Romance of Leadership as a Follower-centric Theory: A SocialConstructionist Approach’, The Leadership Quarterly 6(3): 329–41.

Meindl, J. R., & Ehrlich, S. B. (1988) ‘Developing a Romance of Leadership Scale’,Proceedings of the Eastern Academy of Management: 133–5.

Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985) ‘The Romance of Leadership’,Administrative Science Quarterly 30: 78–102.

Mischel, W. (1977) ‘The Interaction of Person and Situation’, in D. Magnusson &N. S. Endler (eds) Personality at the Crossroads: Current Issues in InteractionalPsychology, pp. 333–52. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Murphy, D. (2003) ‘Voters Took Leap of Faith’, The San Francisco Chronicle, 11 October, B1.Norton, R. W. (1983) Communicator Style: Theory, Applications, and Measures. Beverly

Hills, CA: SAGE.Pearson, C. M., & Clair, J. A. (1998) ‘Reframing Crisis Management’, Academy of

Management Review 23(1): 59–76.Pillai, R. (1996) ‘Crisis and the Emergence of Charismatic Leadership in Groups: An

Experimental Investigation’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology 26(6): 543–62.Pillai, R., & Meindl, J. R. (1991) ‘The Impact of a Performance Crisis on Attributions of

Charismatic Leadership: A Preliminary Study’, Proceedings of the 1991 EasternAcademy of Management Meetings: 138–41.

Pillai, R., & Meindl, J. R. (1998) ‘Context and Charisma: A “Meso” Level Examination ofthe Relationship of Organic Structure, Collectivism, and Crisis to CharismaticLeadership’, Journal of Management 24(5): 643–64.

Pillai, R., & Williams, E. A. (1998) ‘Does Leadership Matter in the Political Arena? VoterPerceptions of Candidates’ Transformational and Charismatic Leadership and the 1996U.S. Presidential Vote’, The Leadership Quarterly 9: 397–416.

Pillai, R., Williams, E. A., Lowe, K. B., & Jung, D. I. (2003) ‘Personality, TransformationalLeadership, Trust, and the 2000 U.S. Presidential Vote’, The Leadership Quarterly,14(2):161–92.

Poole, O. (2003) ‘Terminator Ready to Trample on “150 lb Weakling”’, The DailyTelegraph, 2 October, 17.

Provance, J. (2003) ‘Davis’Aloof Manner Boosts Recall Effort; Voters Forgive if They LikeYou’, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 1 September, A1.

Rimban, L. (2002) ‘Star-Studded Politics’, Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism,8(4):1.

Shamir, B. M. (1994) ‘Ideological Position, Leaders’ Charisma and Voting Preferences:Personal vs. Partisan Elections’, Political Behavior 16: 265–87.


350



Shamir, B. M. (1995) ‘Social Distance and Charisma: Theoretical Notes and an ExploratoryStudy’, The Leadership Quarterly 6: 19–47.

Shamir, B. M. & Howell, J. M. (1999) ‘Organizational and Contextual Influences on theEmergence and Effectiveness of Charismatic Leadership’, The Leadership Quarterly10(2): 257–83.

Stewart, R. (1967) Managers and Their Jobs: A Study of the Similarities and Differences inthe Way Managers Spend Their Time. London: Macmillan.

Stewart, R. (1976) Contrasts in Management. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.Tejeda, M. J., Scandura, T. A., & Pillai, R. (2001) ‘The MLQ Revisited: Psychometric

Properties and Recommendations’, The Leadership Quarterly 12(1): 31–52.Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1986) The Transformational Leader. New York: Wiley.Tyson, L. (2003) ‘A New Governor Won’t Fix What Ails California’, Business Week 24.Villa, J. R., Howell, J. P., Dorfman P. W., & Daniel, D. L. (2003) ‘Problems with Detecting

Moderators in Leadership Research Using Moderated Multiple Regression’, TheLeadership Quarterly 14: 3–23.

Washington Post (2003) ‘Exit Poll’. Available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/recallexitpoll.html

Weber, M. (1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations. New York: Free Press.Wolinsky, H. (2003) ‘New CEO: “A Lot of Great Assets” at Motorola’, The Chicago

Sun-Times, 17 December, 91.Yukl, G. A. (1999) ‘An Evaluation of the Conceptual Weaknesses in Transformational and

Charismatic Leadership Theories’, The Leadership Quarterly 10(2): 285–305.Yukl, G. A. (2002) Leadership in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Michelle C. Bligh is an Assistant Professor in the School of Behavioral andOrganizational Sciences at Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, California.Her research interests include charismatic leadership, organizational culture, inter-personal trust, and political and executive leadership. Her recent work has appearedin The Leadership Quarterly, Journal of Applied Psychology, and The Psychology ofLeadership: New Perspectives and Research. Through her work at the KravisLeadership Institute and the Center for International Leadership, she has helped localand state law enforcement, consulting firms, healthcare organizations, and real estatefirms to assess and improve organizational culture, change management, andleadership development. [email: [email protected]]

Jeffrey C. Kohles is an Assistant Professor of Management and OrganizationalBehavior in the College of Business Administration, as well as Director and foundingmember of the Center for Leadership Innovation and Mentorship Building (CLIMB),at California State University San Marcos. Prior to his current position he was aResearch Fellow at the Center for International Leadership in Buffalo, New York.His research interests include leadership, organizational communication, and theimplementation of organization-level vision and strategy at the individual level. Hisresearch has been published in The Academy of Management Review, Journal ofApplied Psychology, The Leadership Quarterly, and the European Journal of SocialPsychology. He has also helped a variety of both public and private sector organiz-ations assess and improve their effectiveness in the areas of leadership development,organizational culture, strategy implementation, and general product and serviceassessment methodology. [email: [email protected]]


351



Rajnandini Pillai is an Associate Professor of Management at California StateUniversity San Marcos. Her teaching and research interests are leadership and cross-cultural management, and she has published articles on charismatic/transformationalleadership and cross-cultural management in The Leadership Quarterly, Journal ofManagement, and the Journal of International Business Studies. She was recognizedas an Ascendant Scholar by the Western Academy of Management in 2001, and waschief editor of Teaching Leadership: Innovative Approaches for the 21st Century.She is also Executive Director and founding member of the Center for LeadershipInnovation and Mentorship Building (CLIMB). [email: [email protected]]


352



crisis and charisma in the california recall election

Documents