Dr. Michael Warstler has served in the United States Navy from 2008 to Present and has worked as an adjunct professor and task manager for the Department of Defense. He recently completed a Doctorate of Philosophy in Leadership from the University of the Cumberlands and successfully defended a dissertation addressing group psychological abuse experienced in fundamental religious organizations. He can be found on LinkedIn @ https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-warstler-908805109. Divergent Options’ content does not contain information of an official nature nor does the content represent the official position of any government, any organization, or any group.
Title: An Assessment of the Conceptualizing of Charisma / Persuasion and Coercion
Date Originally Written: December 4, 2017.
Date Originally Published: January, 29, 2018.
Summary: Charismatic leaders embody personalized qualities that allow them to influence followers – oftentimes, in the case of destructive leaders, at the detriment of the follower. Coercion occurs when a threat against an individual is levied in exchange for obedience and submission[1] and the influencing of an individual through various techniques to perform a task that he or she would normally not want to do[2].
Text: Le Bon[3] wrote that it is not all that difficult for inspiring leaders to persuade individuals if their needs are being fulfilled and if they are ready to sacrifice self-interest for their “happiness.” Coercion, on the other hand, requires that a charismatic leader leverage social elements against the better judgment of the individual – oftentimes through manipulation. Sandberg and Moreman write that charisma is a relationship where followers typically transfer control and accountability to the leader “often in a worship-like manner[4].” Being that charisma, in itself, is intrinsically morally neutral; instances of abuse of authority are derived when either party in the relationship is given too much influence over the other.
Coercion and persuasion are noted as the forces at work in the conceptualization of the nature of power in relationships. Coercion, as noted by Hartshorne is the “power to determine every detail of what happens in the world,” and persuasion is the power to “significantly influence the happenings in the world[5].” Ultimately, coercion and persuasion remain intrinsically neutral until employed for good or evil ends; but both are grounded in the nature of power. Referring to the individual perspective of charismatic attribution from followers to leaders, if the individual has a perspective of empowerment as coercive, he or she will typically conceive any form of influence as “coercion.” While if he or she has a perspective of empowerment in terms of “love” or “compassion” then he or she might view such empowerment as “persuasion[6].”
Coercion, as noted by famed cult researcher Robert Lifton, is when a threat against an individual is levied in exchange for obedience and submission[7]. It is saying “obey, or else” – the threat of “or else” might be “anything from death to social ostracism, any form of physical or emotional pain[8].” With any form of non-rational imbalance of authority also comes an imbalance in individual responsibility[9]. A deficit in individual responsibility allows the controlling leader to make the primary decisions for the subservient follower. While the follower is given a semblance of control over his or her own decisions and well-being, bullying has been known to occur in imbalanced leader-follower relationships from the subtle to the more blatant and grotesque[10].
Power is a central theme in the process of coercive and persuasive influence. “Leadership” in itself, is a process of influencing and mobilizing individuals towards the attainment of a collective goal. It is important, then, to differentiate between leadership as a positive attribution of social influence[11] where followership is voluntary, and abuse of authority, “where followers are coerced into compliance or obedience[12].” A charismatic leader might passively persuade an individual that a course of action is in his or her best interest, while the coercer might leverage some form of threat against the individual in order to force them into compliance.
Coercion is the “despot’s ideal of power[13].” It involves the coercer and the coerced – and the outcome typically resembles a diminished freedom and responsibility of choice on part of the coerced. Or as Reichard notes “a violation that most would argue, at least in practical terms, is a moral violation[14].” In a leader-follower relationship where a significant imbalance of power is granted to the leader to “adjust the psyche” of his or her followers (oftentimes masked as the attainment towards a collective goal), such influence could just as easily be abused to fulfill the motives of the respective leader. This dilemma, as noted by Ciulla[15] has been aptly named the “Hitler problem.” It is posited by Tourish and Pinnington, could a “Hitler,” then, be viewed as a transformational leader? If so, could one that displays these characteristics also be grouped in the same category with those perceived as moral leaders such as Gandhi or Mother Teresa[16]?
Hitler, Mao, and Stalin are case examples of individuals that displayed high levels of charisma as well as a lack of morality and a focus on idealized influence. Such individuals often influence followers to negatively pursue destructive ends[17]. Research has identified two forms of charismatic leadership, socialized and personalized[18]. The socialized leader focuses on the needs and service to others in the group, while the personalized leader focuses on his or her own needs[19]. A personalized leadership approach often results in magnetism towards the fulfillment of the leader’s own needs vice that of the collective group[20]. Such actions are often self-serving and any doubt of loyalty to the group and its leadership are highly discouraged[21].
While doubt and resistance to authority within these groups certainly occurs, coercion and persuasion are key methods employed by abusive charismatic leaders in order to influence individuals to obtain a “converted” mindset[22]. Oftentimes when “converted” individuals may relinquish his or her resistance to doubt and submit to authority, he or she may become more liable to display the most zealous characteristics and become the most vocal proponents “aligned with the belief system chosen for them by powerful others[23].” In the instance of Saul’s conversion to Paul in the Book of Acts, one might find that the most zealous resistors to change are also the most likely proponents once converted. Coercion and persuasion, when employed effectively, can evolve into a “discursive system of constraint” that is often highly difficult to challenge and resist even if one considers themselves to be a “strong-willed” individual[24].
Endnotes:
[1] Lifton, R. J. (1961). Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of “Brainwashing” in China. Mansfield Centre, CT: Martino Publishing.
[2] Tourish, D., Collinson, D., & Barker, J. R. (2009). Manufacturing conformity: Leadership through coercive persuasion in business organisations. M@n@gement, 12(5), 360-383.
[3] Le Bon, G. (1917). The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc.
[4] Sandberg, Y., & Moreman, C. M. (2015). Common threads among different forms of charismatic leadership. Journal of Religion and Business Ethics, 3(1), p. 13.
[5] Hartshorne, C. (1984). Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, p. 11.
[6] Reichard, J. (2014). Relational empowerment: A process-relational theology of the spirit- filled life. Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, 36(2), 226-245, p. 231.
[7] Lifton, R. J. (1961). Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of “Brainwashing” in China. Mansfield Centre, CT: Martino Publishing, p. 438.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Sandberg, Y., & Moreman, C. M. (2015). Common threads among different forms of charismatic leadership. Journal of Religion and Business Ethics, 3(1).
[10] Samnani, A., & Singh, P. (2013). When leaders victimize: The role of charismatic leaders in facilitating group pressures. Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 189-202.
[11] Shamir, B. (1999). Taming charisma for better understanding and greater usefulness: A response to Beyer. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 555-562.
[12] Tourish, D., Collinson, D., & Barker, J. R. (2009). Manufacturing conformity: Leadership through coercive persuasion in business organisations. M@n@gement, 12(5), 360-383, p. 362.
[13] Hartshorne, C. (1984). Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, p. 12.
[14] Reichard, J. (2014). Relational empowerment: A process-relational theology of the spirit- filled life. Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, 36(2), 226-245, p. 231-232.
[15] Ciulla, J. (1995). Leadership ethics: Mapping the territory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5, 5- 28.
[16] Tourish, D., & Pinnington, A. (2002). Transformational leadership, corporate cultism and the spirituality paradigm: An unholy trinity in the workplace? Human Relations, 55(2), 147-172, p. 149.
[17] Vann, B. A., Coleman, A. N., & Simpson, J. A. (2014, September). Development of the Vannsimpco Leadership Survey: A delineation of hybrid leadership styles. SBS Journal of Applied Business Research, 3, 28-38.
[18] Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B., (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process relationship and their consequences. The Academy of Management Review, 30, 96-112.
[19] Howell, J. M. (1988). Two faces of charisma: Socialized and personalized leadership in organizations. Charismatic Leadership: The Elusive Factor in Organizational Effectiveness. (pp. 213−236). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
[20] Lussier, R. N., & Achua, C. F. (2013). Leadership: Theory, Application, & Skill Development (6 ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.
[21] Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
[22] Tourish, D., Collinson, D., & Barker, J. R. (2009). Manufacturing conformity: Leadership through coercive persuasion in business organisations. M@n@gement, 12(5), 360-383.
[23] Ibid, p. 364.
[24] Ibid.
