There’s a rationale to charisma, one that explains why we choose the leaders we do. Let me state flatly: charisma plays a critical role in who we come to see as leaderly. People who are impressive have special qualities. Some of that impressiveness has to do with technical competence, but there is also the impressiveness that comes with good looks, communication skills or aura. A few years ago, research about Fortune 500 CEOs revealed that 85% of them are male, above average in height, and tend to be perceived as good looking.
Societal norms as to what is or is not leaderly play an undeniable part in who we choose to elevate as leaders. Those norms can shift dramatically depending on times and circumstances. What was appealing in one era may be less appealing today. The basic urge to elevate somebody into a leadership role, however, is a biological instinct, rooted in our need for survival ¾ we’re looking for direction, guidance, security and emotional identification. We may prefer to deny that urge, or sanitize it for public consumption, but it’s a powerful force, nonetheless.
The power of charisma is an indication of our desire to identify with our leaders. In general, we tend to follow or be influenced by those with perceived similarities to ourselves. Psychologists call this homopholy. At its most basic, homopholy can refer to an identification with physical characteristics. If you are tall, male and white, you will tend to identify with leaders who are tall, male and white. If you are female, African American and over fifty, you will tend to identify with leaders who are also female, African American and over fifty. Of course, identification can go deeper than physical attributes. If you have a southern accent and enjoy hunting, chances are you will identify more strongly with a political leader who also hails from the south and supports gun ownership. If you have strong religious convictions, you feel more comfortable being led by someone who is also religious.
Perceived similarity is one aspect to leadership identification, but so is perceived difference. We are not necessarily looking for our leaders to be absolutely like us; we also hope that they have some differences. Those dissimilarities, however, should be positive ones ¾ what’s known as optimal heterophylly. We hope that our leaders are smarter than we are, more competent, visionary and articulate. We want them to be like us, at a core level, but better than us, too. We are drawn to leaders we can look up to and idealize.
Political consultants monitor these two variables closely. When consultants poll voters to determine which candidate they are most comfortable with, they are essentially asking who they identify with most strongly. When they ask voters which candidate embodies a critical value like strength, integrity or virtue, they are assessing the degree of idealization. Similarly, if the leader of your organization articulates values that you embrace, and a vision which you share, chances are you are open to being highly influenced and directed by that person. You feel that they are like you, at some basic level, but also capable of directing you to a place you could not get to by yourself.
Anthony Smith is Co-Founder and a Managing Director of Leadership Research Institute and author of ESPN: The Company (Jossey-Bass, September 2009). He is also the author The Taboos of Leadership: 10 Secrets No One Will Tell You about Leaders and What They Really Think (Jossey-Bass, May 2007). This article originally appeared in different form in his book, The Taboos of Leadership.
