Discourses of Charisma: Barack Obama’s First 6 Months as the President of the USA

Discourses of Charisma: Barack Obama’s First 6 Monthsas the President of the USA

Tuomo Takala • Sanja Tanttu • Anna-Maija Lamsa •

Aila Virtanen

Received: 5 August 2011 / Accepted: 16 June 2012 / Published online: 3 July 2012

� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract This study aims to investigate discourses of the

charisma of Barack Obama in articles in a leading Finnish

newspaper during the first 6 months of his presidency. The

results show that the media created a very enthusiastic

atmosphere around Obama. His charisma was built up

mostly around his person, with the emphasis on an

exceptional personality, life story and behaviour. In addi-

tion, the various crises that arose were used to reinforce the

picture of Obama as charismatic. The findings undermine

the idea of a single form of charismatic leadership and

provide empirical support for the framework put forward

by Steyrer (Organizational Studies 19(5), 807–828, 1998),

that various types of charismatic leadership exist: In this

study paternalistic, heroic, missionary and majestic are

identified. The study contributes to Steyrer’s framework by

showing that certain types of charisma occur in different

social contexts. The results also suggest that ethics is

constructed as a crucial part of charismatic leadership, but

the construction of Obama’s charisma in contrast to others

raises ethical concerns.

Keywords Charisma � Charismatic leadership � Ethics �Barack Obama � Discourse analysis � Media � Social

constructionism

Introduction

Personal appeal evidently played a major role in Barack

Obama’s election as president of the United States. Oba-

ma’s highly visible and successful election campaign cre-

ated a picture of him throughout the world as an influential

leader who inspires hope. In everyday language use, he is

described as a charismatic leader about whom people have

strong opinions. Obama, the Democratic presidential can-

didate and a former senator from Illinois, received 52.7 %

of the votes and was elected 44th president of the United

States on 4 November 2008. His official inauguration took

place on 20 January 2009 in Washington, DC. What makes

his electoral victory historic is the fact that by winning the

election, he became the first black president of the United

States of America. Besides with his challenge to white

male elites, i.e., to those who occupy high and powerful

leadership positions in many societies and organizations,

Obama’s election is said to mark a historical and cultural

shift, reducing white male dominance among great-man

leaders (Brown 2011).

In this article, we are interested in charismatic leadership

and specifically the charisma of Barack Obama. The focus

is on the discursive ways used by the media to describe and

represent Obama’s charisma. We draw on the discourse

analytic approach to study the topic. Unlike traditional

approaches in leadership (e.g., trait, behavioural or situa-

tional approaches), which tend to fix leadership in the per-

son, the situation or person-situation combinations

(Fairhurst 2011), our approach emphasizes the active role of

communication in the creation of social reality (Berger and

Luckmann 1966). In other words, we see leadership and

specifically charismatic leadership in this article as a phe-

nomenon which is created through language use and com-

munication (Lamsa and Sintonen 2001; Fairhurst 2011).

T. Takala (&) � S. Tanttu � A.-M. Lamsa � A. Virtanen

School of Business and Economics, University of Jyvaskyla,

P.O. Box 35, 40014 Jyvaskyla, Finland

e-mail: [email protected]

S. Tanttu


A.-M. Lamsa


A. Virtanen


123

J Bus Ethics (2013) 115:149–166

DOI 10.1007/s10551-012-1389-0

One crucial and powerful force in the creation of social

reality nowadays is the mass media. The media both create

and maintain meaning, thereby influencing our thinking

and acting (Fairclough and Wodak 1997; Fairclough 1998).

The media make choices about how to represent what goes

on in the world, and this representation can be seen to have

different implications in leadership. For example, Obama’s

charisma can be articulated as an inspiration to the creation

of new social norms regarding racial progress. This kind of

discourse may change people’s attitudes towards leaders of

colour and thus lead to a decrease in racism in leadership

(Brown 2011). The discursive ways in which the media

represent the charisma of Obama, one of the most influ-

ential and visible world leaders can have an impact on what

kind of ideas and actions are valued in leadership in dif-

ferent parts of the world (cf. Lamsa and Tiensuu 2002).

In this article, we focus on articles gathered from Hel-

singin Sanomat, the leading daily newspaper in Finland,

during the course of the first 6 months of Obama’s presi-

dency. This first period of an American presidency is when

the president is given the chance to point policy in new

directions and create a new political synergy, and when his

actions are not yet evaluated too critically. The aim of this

article is to investigate how the charisma of Barak Obama

is constructed in the articles and discuss the ethical

implications of the discourses in charismatic leadership. If

charismatic leaders can develop, support and inspire fol-

lowers, they can also destroy their followers’ self-efficacy

and create dependent individuals (Howell and Avolio

1992; Sankowsky 1995).

To achieve our aim in this article, we conducted an

empirical qualitative study and sought to answer the fol-

lowing four questions:

(1) How is charisma reasoned in the texts? (2) What is

the content of charisma in the discourses? (3) What are the

functions of the discourses of charisma? and (4) What kind

of a social context calls for a particular discourse of cha-

risma to occur?

Charismatic leadership has been much discussed in prior

research (e.g., Burns 1979; Bass 1985; Bryman 1992;

Howell and Avolio 1992; Conger and Kanungo 1994;

Steyrer 1998; Conger 1999; Shamir and Howell 1999;

Aaltio-Marjosola and Takala 2000; Conger 2011). A sub-

stantial body of research has emphasized a specific per-

spective, such as the outcomes (e.g., Conger et al. 2000;

DeGroot et al. 2000; Judge and Piccolo 2004) and ante-

cedents (e.g., Campbell et al. 2008; Hayibor et al. 2011) of

charismatic leadership. Research has also focused on the

characteristics and behaviour of the charismatic leader and

his or her followers, or on situational factors and sub-

sequent influence (e.g., House et al. 1991; Shamir et al.

1993, 1998; Shamir and Howell 1999; Conger et al. 2000;

Conger 2011).

Despite some exceptions (e.g., Steyrer 1998; Kerr 2008;

Brown 2011), prior research on charismatic leadership has

often adopted a functionalist approach (Burrell and Morgan

1979) that has led to an interest in investigating the func-

tional effectiveness of the charismatic leadership and how

to measure this (Kerr 2008). Studies often ignore the fact

that charismatic leadership is a diverse, multiple, context-

bound and socially constructed phenomenon. This study

makes a contribution to prior empirical research on char-

ismatic leadership by showing that several types of char-

ismatic leadership exist and different types occur in

different social contexts.

To obtain a holistic and rich view of the topic—a typical

requirement in qualitative research (Bryman and Bell 2003)—

we bring together two approaches to charismatic leadership in

our empirical analysis, namely, those of Steyrer (1998) and

Yukl (2002). These approaches were selected because they

provide a multidisciplinary and broad view of the topic.

Steyrer’s approach draws on Christian theology and Western

mythology, providing an interesting theoretical conceptuali-

zation of charismatic leadership from historical and cultural

viewpoints. Yukl’s approach, for its part, emphasizes a multi-

perspective approach and a person-centred viewpoint and

draws on the often used four perspectives on charismatic

leadership, namely, attribution theory, self-concept theory,

psychodynamic theory and social contagion theory.

From a methodological point of view, this study makes a

contribution to prior empirical research on leadership by

drawing on qualitative methodology. Leadership research

has largely been dominated by a single method—namely,

the quantitative questionnaire (Bryman 2011). Thus, stud-

ies have typically derived from a positivist methodology

(Kerr 2008). Avolio et al. (2009a, b) say that quantitative

strategies for investigating leadership have been dominant

in the literature for the past 100 years and that this repre-

sents a particularly North American view of the method-

ological state of the field. However, as Collinson and Grint

(2005) suggest, our understanding of leadership is best

developed by applying more diverse research methods and

by exploring a variety of research environments.

This article proceeds as follows. First, we define the

concept of charisma, particularly in leadership. We then

move on to present our theoretical background in two main

parts: Firstly, we describe the theoretical perspectives of

Steyrer (1998) and Yukl (2002) and secondly, discuss prior

research on charismatic leadership from an ethical point of

view. Next, we describe the discourse analytic approach

used in this study. We then present our empirical results. In

the final section, we present a summary and our conclu-

sions, with a discussion of the ethical implications of the

results for charismatic leadership, some reflections on the

research limitations of the study and a consideration of its

implications for future research.

150 T. Takala et al.

123

Concept of Charisma

Charisma has been discussed for a long time; Plato talked

about charisma, leadership and society (Takala 1998). The

concept of charisma has its origin in ancient Greek:

‘Charis’ means favour and the suffix ‘ma’, added to the

root, forms a concept which means ‘gift of favour’. The best

known and most widely used definition of the concept was

put forward by Max Weber (Steyrer 1998). According to

Weber, the concept of charisma ‘will be applied to a certain

quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is

considered extraordinary and treated as endowed with

supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically excep-

tional power or qualities’ (Weber 1978, p. 241).

Steyrer (1998) says that Weber’s definition illustrates

two important aspects of charisma. Firstly, the leader’s

exceptional and exemplary qualities are of importance.

Secondly, those qualities are evaluated by followers, that

is, charisma lies in the eyes of followers. According to

Weber (1978), while traditional leaders, e.g., kings, base

their authority on custom and bureaucratic leaders, e.g.,

managers in large organizations, get their authority from

rules, the authority of charismatic leaders is typically

understood to be drawn from their own unique and unusual

attributes. Their most important attribute is evidently the

ability to recast the world in a new light, providing fol-

lowers with a life-changing vision (e.g., Conger and Kan-

ungo 1987; Kirkpatrick and Locke 1996; Glynn and Dowd

2008).

During the last few decades, research on charismatic

leadership has increased considerably. One of the first

researchers to discuss charismatic leadership was Robert

House (House et al. 1991), who claimed that charismatic

leadership not only derives from the leader’s behaviour but

also involves specific personality traits and situational

factors. The importance of the theory proposed by House

et al. can be seen to lie in its multidimensionality: It not

only considers the leader’s behaviour and personality but

also accounts for subordinates and situation-specific fac-

tors. The theory has been utilized in later research to study

the effect of charismatic leadership on followers’ motiva-

tion, among other things (e.g., Shamir et al. 1993; Conger

1999).

The most common way to define charisma is as a kind of

personality trait which a leader either has or does not have.

Thus, charismatic leadership studies are frequently based

on trait theory, in particular, great man leadership theory

(Brown 2011), and any discussion of potential charismatic

leaders tends to bring up the question of personality (e.g.,

Conger and Kanungo 1987; House et al. 1991; Brown

2011). Such personal attributes as physical appearance,

energy, trustworthiness, perseverance, use of voice and

rhetorical skills have also been examined as leadership

traits, and specifically as traits of charismatic leadership

(Bryman 1992, pp. 43–48). Two studies highlighting the

understanding of charismatic leadership from a personal-

ity-centred viewpoint are presented in the following in

more detail as they focus on presidential charisma, which is

our focus in this article.

A study by House et al. (1991) investigated the effec-

tiveness of American presidents and found that it largely

depends on their personality and charisma. Charisma,

together with the age of the presidency, and the crises and

needs that have arisen during its course could explain from

25 to 66 % of presidential performance. The researchers

also expressed some reservations about their findings, as

their study ignored the influence of social situations, for

example. Indeed, social circumstances and social interac-

tion can sometimes explain charisma better than the lea-

der’s personality alone (House et al. 1991). Fiol et al.

(1999) investigated the US presidency in the twentieth

century. In this study, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D.

Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan were

named as charismatic presidents, whereas, for example,

Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter were found

to be non-charismatic. In the study, a process model of

charismatic leadership was developed for empirical testing.

Empirical exploration of the model suggests that the

presidents who were seen as charismatic leaders employed

a consistent set of communication strategies for effecting

social change (Fiol et al. 1999).

Crant and Bateman (2000) investigated the relationship

between a leader’s charisma and their proactive personal-

ity, finding a positive correlation between the two. In this

study, proactivity was defined as the tendency to take

action to influence changes in their operating environment

instead of just reacting to them. The proactive leader dis-

covers new opportunities in change. Several personal fea-

tures of charismatic leadership were associated with

proactivity: active innovation, assertiveness in social situ-

ations, a positive attitude to change and vision, among

other things (Crant and Bateman 2000). A corresponding

result was reported by Deluga (1998), who examined the

proactivity of US presidents in relation to their charisma

and performance.

Besides personal factors, situational factors have also

been seen as a key in defining charismatic leadership

(Bryman 1992). Weber (1978) already noted that sudden

changes and uncertainty easily create a social call for

charismatic leadership. Since then, numerous scholars have

studied the effects of crisis on leadership and also exam-

ined political charismatic leadership in situations of crisis

(e.g., House et al. 1991, Bligh and Kohles 2009). Charis-

matic leadership is assumed to bring a sense of security

among followers and show them a way towards a better

future. Today’s rapidly changing operational environment,

Discourses of Charisma 151

123

which is full of surprises and uncertainty, can be well

suited to a charismatic leadership that can succeed in

communicating a meaningful and appealing message to

followers. Constructing such a message may be based on a

totally new vision of the direction of action or on a kindling

of people’s mythical beliefs (Lamsa and Hautala 2008,

p. 245).

Charismatic leadership can also be defined as a socially

and culturally bound phenomenon (Aaltio-Marjosola and

Takala 2000; Ball and Carter 2002). It emerges in social

interaction and its occurrence requires different behav-

ioural models and contextual factors in different cultures

(Bryman 1992, p. 56). Ospina and Foldy (2009) investi-

gated the role of ethnicity and specifically of race in rela-

tion to leadership. Their literature review examined the

ways in which scholars have treated the relationship

between race-ethnicity and leadership. The review illus-

trated an enormous range of topics, approaches and

methods related to the issue. The classifying of the litera-

ture is organized around three issues; how race-ethnicity

affects the evaluation of leaders, how race-ethnicity affects

how leadership is enacted and how leaders grapple with the

social reality of race-ethnicity (Ospina and Foldy 2009).

Barack Obama’s election as the first black president of the

United States has made a cultural and social approach to

charismatic leadership of particular interest. More attention

needs to be paid to studying both race and cultural ethnicity

in charismatic leadership (see, e.g., Brown 2011).

Explanations for the emergence of charisma have been

sought particularly by studying examples offered by

political leaders. Weber (1978) divided charisma in a

political environment into supernatural and natural com-

ponents. Supernatural components were involved in value

charisma, faith charisma, providential charisma and

ephemeral charisma, whereas emotional charisma, ecstatic

feelings and venerational feelings were natural components

of charisma. In fact, Weber’s work implies what might be

called the prototypes of political charisma, namely, dem-

ocratic and revolutionary charisma. Research on political

charisma also continues—as evidenced by our present

study, for instance (Schweitzer 1974, pp. 179–180).

Steyrer: Archetypes of Charismatic Leadership

Drawing on an idea by Neuberger (1990), Steyrer (1998)

built a theoretical typology of the archetypes of charismatic

leadership. The concept of an archetype that Steyrer used

goes back to C.G. Jung and highlights the phenotypes of

leadership which people assume to be reality in a very

fundamental way. The archetypes in a particular field of

life, for example, in leadership, exert a remarkable hold on

the behaviour of individuals, groups, organizations and

societies. In addition to a Western mythological element,

often expressed in fairytales, Steyrer links his archetypes to

Christian theology (Steyrer 1998, pp. 817–818).

In his article, Steyrer (1998) discusses the leadership

archetypes that underlie traditional leadership approaches

and classifications, which Neuberger (1990) defined as

father, hero and saviour. To these three archetypes initially

defined by Neuberger Steyrer added a fourth one, king.

Unlike Neuberger’s three archetypes, which draw on

Christianity, the background of the regal, or majestic,

charisma lies in European folklore (Steyrer 1998, p. 807).

Let us now look in more detail at the four archetypes in

Steyrer’s (1998) typology of charismatic leadership: father,

hero, saviour and king.

According to Steyrer (1998), in Christianity, God is

referred to as a father, representing such important values

as fatherly love, wisdom and care, and creator, the maker

of heaven and earth (Steyrer 1998, p. 818). However, as

Neuberger (1990, see Steyrer 1998, p. 818) suggested, the

archetype of the father can also be associated with the

‘despotic father’ and the ‘infantilizing father’. In particular,

in a patriarchal society, the father represents the absolute

lord and generator. While the idea of despotism points to

the father’s superiority, strength, knowledge and greatness,

the infantilizing father represents both softer values, such

as understanding, forgiveness, protectiveness and care, and

also harder values, such as order, demandingness, pre-

dominance and punishment. The archetype of the father

can be called paternalistic charisma in leadership that is

based on both love and power: Because he provides care

the leader expects his followers to submit to his ideas and

orders, and thus he exercises power over his followers

(Steyrer 1998; Lamsa and Hautala 2008, p. 247). Pater-

nalistic charisma embodies thus such elements as strength,

dependability, demandingness, protectiveness and even

moralism (Steyrer 1998, p. 818).

The concept of a hero derives from the Indo-European

word kel, which originally meant ‘to drive a herd’: The

duty of a shepherd was to defend his flock against danger

even at the risk of his own life. Consequently, the word

came to refer to a brave fighter who knew what he had to

do. In the Christian faith, Jesus is metaphorically called the

‘Good Shepherd’ who will do everything to protect His

followers. In folklore, the hero is typically patriarchal. He

has exceptional power and gains admiration and praise by

overcoming dangers in the accomplishment of whatever is

his task. The hero is someone who makes sacrifices and

takes great risks to defend his followers. The archetype of

the hero relates to heroic charisma, which is a combination

of strength and superiority, with good and evil juxtaposed

as in heroic tales. Even if the hero is typically argued to

possess such praiseworthy values as authenticity, passion

and self-assurance, the heroic charisma can also have a


123

dark side. The hero can be fanatical, conceited, insane and

seedy in carrying out his task (Steyrer 1998, p. 819).

The third archetype of charisma is that of saviour. In the

Christian tradition, the saviour is linked to the underlying

idea of God as the Holy Ghost, which is understood as the

animator in the Holy Trinity. From this point of view, the

saviour represents vitality and enlightened leadership

(Steyrer 1998, p. 820). However, as Steyrer (1998) con-

tends, the archetype of the saviour can also be found in

mythology and ancient civilisations. The saviour is a

charismatic innovator and transformer who changes things

for the better. He is able to put large masses under his spell

so that they will gladly exchange their own will for the

leader’s or for a common will. Missionary charisma, part of

the charisma of the saviour, is often thought of as mythical

and perhaps inexplicable. A leader with saviour-like mis-

sionary charisma is innovative and capable of making

changes. This type of charisma is, therefore, particularly

called for and appropriate in times of major crisis or change,

to fill in value voids and point out new goals for the future.

Missionary charisma in leadership is typically explained in

terms of mission, vision and transformation, and as offering

strategies to overcome crises. Such features as being

visionary, transformational and wise can be seen as positive

aspects of this type of charisma in leadership. However,

saviour-like missionary charisma can also be indoctrinaire,

dogmatic and other-worldly (Steyrer 1998, p. 820).

Finally, the fourth type of charisma draws on ancient

European folklore describing the hero who aspires to

become king. To become king is the final phase in the

hero’s maturing process. Typically the king is viewed as

the wise old man. Majestic charisma does not demand

nobility by birth: Anybody can achieve the position of king

through noble acts and wisdom. In this way, majestic

charisma is linked to heroic charisma, because leadership

in a triumphant heroic battle can elevate the hero to the

charisma level of a king. A leader with majestic charisma is

described as wise, self-confident, reliable and beyond all

reproach, a man who seeks peace and stability, orderly

growth and nurturing for all people. Even if the king-type

majestic charisma is linked to such characteristics as

politeness, tolerance, wisdom and general understanding,

this type of charisma can also be linked to indifference,

passivity and lack of awareness. (Steyrer 1998,

pp. 821–822; Lamsa and Hautala 2008, p. 248).

Yukl: Four Perspectives on Charismatic Leadership

Yukl (2002) distinguishes four perspectives on charismatic

leadership, each of which looks from a slightly different angle

at charismatic traits, leader and follower behaviour, influence

processes and situational factors. These approaches—namely,

attribution theory, self-concept theory, psychodynamic theory

and social contagion—need to be explored.

Attribution theory approaches charismatic leadership

from a behavioural viewpoint (Conger and Kanungo 1987).

This theory sees follower perceptions of charisma as a key

issue: Followers are the ones who determine what qualities

in the leader’s behaviour make him or her charismatic. A

challenging but achievable vision, an open-minded way of

acting, self-sacrifice, risk taking, trustworthiness and

enthusiasm add to the leader’s charisma and followers’

commitment. Followers’ desire to identify with a leader

whom they consider superior further increases the leader’s

influence. According to this theory, the desire to please the

leader is indeed one of the main factors motivating fol-

lowers (Conger and Kanungo 1987; Bryman 1992; Nort-

house 2004).

Situational factors such as follower disenchantment or

crisis situations offer a good chance that followers will turn

to the leader for support, attributing charisma to him or her.

Weber (1978) even suggested that crisis is a necessary

condition for charisma to emerge. Conger and Kanungo

(1987), who developed attribution theory, did not think that

an actual crisis was necessary, because the leader’s per-

sonal characteristics, operFating strategies and vision often

produce reformative action even in the absence of crisis.

This theory does not regard challenges or follower

dependence on the leader as crucial situational factors for

the emergence of charismatic leadership (Yukl 2002).

The self-concept theory originally developed by House

along with several colleagues (see Conger 2011, p. 92) was

revised significantly by Shamir et al. (1993), who looked at

charismatic leadership from a pragmatic viewpoint: Instead

of considering charismatic leadership to be mystical, this

theory sees it as quite well definable. The self-concept

theory of Shamir and colleagues (1993) focuses on the self-

concept of followers. The theory suggests that people

behave in ways that will establish a sense of identity for

them. Charismatic leaders tie the self-concepts of their

followers to the aims and collective experiences linked to

their mission so that they become valued elements of the

followers’ self-concept (Conger 2011). According to this

theory, which stresses followers’ motivation, a charismatic

leader’s influence is based on people’s inherent need to

build and maintain healthy self-concepts for themselves. In

organizations, for example, tying the organization’s needs

and goals to the self-concepts of organization members

allows them to commit and motivate themselves optimally

to their job. Charismatic leadership is based on change that

can be promoted by understanding the nature of the job,

formulating an appealing future vision, developing a strong

sense of communal identity and thus improving both

individual and joint effectiveness (Shamir et al. 1993;

Conger 1999; Yukl 2002).


123

According to Shamir et al. (1993), affecting people’s self-

concepts helps to reveal motivational factors that ultimately

have wider impact. To have this effect, the leader needs to

offer ideological explanations, emphasize a collective

identity, show confidence in followers and acknowledge

their values and their individual and collective efficiency.

This kind of leadership behaviour will have a positive effect

on followers’ self-confidence, effectiveness, identification

with the leader, social identification and their adoption of

shared values. In an organizational context, for example, an

improved self-concept and increased motivation are reflec-

ted in the organization’s sense of communality, commitment

and self-sacrifice and in the meaningfulness of work.

Another important impact of charismatic leadership,

according to this theory, is creating belief in a better future,

even if it is difficult to translate such a vision into concrete

goals. People tend to follow a leader who gives them hope of

a better tomorrow (Shamir et al. 1993).

The Freudian psychodynamic theory (Freud 1955) offers

one explanation for charismatic leadership. Although Freud

himself did not use the term charisma, his views on lead-

ership have been interpreted as referring to a charismatic

leader–follower relationship. The psychodynamic theory

has been widely criticized for not fully answering the

question of how charisma emerges in the first place,

although it can help to understand the occurrence of char-

ismatic leadership from a psychological standpoint (Bry-

man 1992, pp. 37–39; Yukl 2002). The Freudian theory

explains the occurrence and great influence of charismatic

leadership by followers’ mental self-regulation, such as

regression, transference or projection. According to

Freudian thinking, the effectiveness of charisma is derived

from childhood experiences and emotions. If negative

childhood experiences or family relations have prevented

an individual from building a healthy identity, he or she will

easily identify with a strong and charismatic leader. Such

identification does not involve critical evaluation of the

situation: It is grounded in unconscious childhood experi-

ences. This theory has been used, for example, to explain

Hitler’s popularity: Germans, most of whom had suffered in

the First World War and the depression and who were in a

state of fear and uncertainty, were in a situation that was

quite favourable to the emergence of a charismatic leader

(Bryman 1992, pp. 38–39; Northouse 2004).

We can agree with Bryman (1992) when he states that

the Freudian approach has some possible use in the context

of a Weberian viewpoint to understanding charisma,

because the Freudian approach attempts to deal with the

vexing problem of psychological mechanisms that prompt

some individuals to develop a vision and to attract a fol-

lower to bring that vision to fruition. The approach may

have a role to play in our understanding of some of the

psychological mechanisms that lie behind the emergence of

some charismatic leaders and their attraction to people who

follow leaders. This may be the case with Obama and his

followers.

The effect of charismatic leadership on followers has

further been explained by leader–follower interaction (e.g.,

Gardner and Avolio 1998), even if charismatic leadership

can occur without any direct interaction between a leader

and his followers. A leader can emerge as charismatic by

communicating through the media, for instance, television.

This type of charismatic influence process among followers

is called social contagion. In particular, Meindl (1989, see

Yukl 2002) explained charismatic leadership as a process

among the followers themselves rather than as being

dependent on how a leader influences followers. Social

contagion is the process of followers influencing each

other. From the leader, such a process demands particularly

role model–like behaviour, even if the leader personally is

not trying to exert any influence or seeking to become a

charismatic leader. Attributions of charisma to a leader

often start in a small social group, but can attract more and

more attention through social contagion. This view, too,

maintains that charisma often occurs under uncertain cir-

cumstances or in situations of crisis (Gardner and Avolio

1998; Yukl 2002).

Pastor et al. (2002) studied charismatic leadership and

factors affecting its occurrence in social networks, namely,

within a police force and a school. Their findings support

the social contagion theory, showing that friendships were

more important than work or school relations in follower

attributions of charisma to a leader. More widely inter-

preted, the results imply that solidarity and communality

are significant situational factors for both the emergence

and erosion of charismatic leadership.

Finally, it is worth noting here that social contagion is

closely related to various sociological and psychological

studies on human behaviour in social situations. Social

identity and its relationship to leadership have been a

subject of social psychological research, for example, and

it is also part of the self-concept theory (Shamir et al.

1993). In social identity analysis, leadership is understood

as a group process, whether it is a question of a small team

or a whole nation. The ideal situation is one in which

people feel a strong sense of solidarity based on a prototype

of ideal values, attitudes and behaviour, which is deter-

mined by the group. The leader and followers form a close-

knit group, where leadership can be seen, for example, in

the way in which followers view the leader as an exem-

plary group member with whom they want to identify. The

group members define their own social identity in relation

to the leader’s model behaviour. In favourable conditions

and situations, follower admiration and respect for the

leader can evoke charisma. Here, charisma is understood as

a product of a social cognitive process, not as a personality


123

trait that determines the effectiveness of leadership (Hogg

2005, pp. 53–74).

Charismatic Leadership and Ethics

Charismatic leadership can be very useful in developing

organizations and society because it can cause fundamental

change, create meaning in followers’ lives, provide an

inspiring vision and create hope. However, as history

shows, charisma has both positive and negative sides

(Conger 1999; Howell and Avolio 1992; Takala 2009). For

every example of a positive charismatic leader such as

Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, one can find an

example of a negative charismatic leader, such as Adolf

Hitler or Jim Jones (Yukl 2002). The question of ethics is,

therefore, an important part of any discussion of charis-

matic leadership. According to Howell and Avolio (1992),

charismatic leadership can be divided into ethical and

unethical charisma. They say that even if charismatic

leaders can be effective leaders, they may not always have

very high ethical standards.

On the basis of an empirical study, Howell and Avolio

(1992) propose that ethical and unethical charismatic

leaders can be distinguished by five main features. Firstly,

ethical charismatic leaders use power constructively to

serve their followers, aiming to contribute to their fol-

lowers’ welfare. Unethical charismatic leaders for their part

use power in dominant ways to serve their own self-interest

and to manipulate others for their own purposes. Secondly,

the visions of charismatic leaders are responsive to the

interests of their followers, and the visions are developed in

interaction with their followers, while unethical charis-

matics derive their visions only from within themselves, to

advance their personal goals.

The third feature is that ethical charismatic leaders listen

to the ideas and wishes of their followers and facilitate two-

way communication with them. Furthermore, they learn

from critical feedback and are not afraid of it. Unethical

charismatic leaders stress one-way communication and are

closed to other people’s ideas and suggestions; they look

for admiration from others and do not accept disagreement.

Fourthly, the intellectual development and stimulation of

followers are important for ethical charismatic leaders and

they encourage their followers to look at the world from

different angles. Unethical charismatic leaders, on the other

hand, are insensitive to their followers’ needs and aspira-

tions to develop. Finally, ethical charismatic leaders tend to

follow their own principles and can act against the opinion

of the majority if the action is in line with their principles,

which are conducive to the good of both the organization

and society. Unethical charismatic leaders follow standards

that serve their self-interests (Howell and Avolio 1992).

Howell and Avolio (1992) show that charismatic leaders

are good at impression management, at presenting what

they do in such a way that it seems to conform to what

others regard as good and right. Dramaturgical leadership

has been regarded as an extreme case of impression man-

agement, in which the leader’s actions are highly system-

atic and calculated (Conger 1999, p. 158). Using

impression management techniques, unethical charismatic

leaders can manipulate others with their excellent com-

munication skills. For example, such impression manage-

ment abilities as presenting oneself as a worthy role model,

making oneself attractive to others, presenting oneself as

highly competent and as a powerful person who is willing

and able to hurt others or appearing needy to solicit aid

from others, can all be influential (Takala 2009).

In general, leaders who are skilled in impression man-

agement make themselves easy to identify with. They also

seek to appear more attractive and confident than they

actually are. To be more visionary and inspirational, they

paint a view of the future that is more fantasy than reality

(Bass 1985, p. 173). However, as Bass (1985) notes, a

certain level of impression management is the norm in

current societies, and there are many occasions when it can

be appropriate for a leader to soften the hard facts of a

situation. So impression management can also be hopeful

and optimistic without being deceitful and treacherous

(Bass 1985, p. 174).

According to Bass and Riggio (2006, p. 5), in transfor-

mational leadership theory, charisma is a crucial element of

leadership. Bass (1985, p. 31) views charisma as a key

component of transformational leadership, but argues that

charisma alone does not make anyone a transformational

leader. What is required of transformational leadership is

an ability to activate, motivate, develop and authorize

followers. Bass (1985) argues that transformational lead-

ership has been found to suit a variety of situations and

cultures and can occur anywhere. However, there are fewer

charismatic than transformational leaders, and the occur-

rence of charisma is more strongly dependent on situational

factors. Charismatic leadership also tends to arouse more

powerful emotions in followers, and to divide opinion more

vehemently. In other words, a charismatic leader easily

attracts not only admirers and followers but also enemies

(Yukl 2002, p. 261).

There continues to be disagreement about the relation-

ship between the transformational and charismatic leader-

ship theories. Many writers find a fundamental similarity

between transformational and charismatic leadership, while

others consider them to be quite distinct and disagree about

whether they can co-occur. Research on these two theories,

and especially a comparison of the two, has been difficult

because of the vagueness of the related concepts, which is

why the theories have been easy targets of criticism (see


123

Yukl 2002, p. 260; Northouse 2007, p. 192). Although the

theories have much in common, there are also major dif-

ferences. The two theories, for example, see the leader–

follower relationship somewhat differently: A transforma-

tional leader is likely to delegate more power and respon-

sibility to followers, making them less leader dependent,

whereas a charismatic leader tends to behave so as to

preserve the followers’ image of a superior and competent

leader (Yukl 2002, p. 261).

Methodology and Data

Discourse and Discourse Analysis

The research literature contains a range of definitions for

the concept of discourse (Phillips and Hardy 2002). Despite

the variety of approaches, Hardy et al. (2000) contend that

research on discourse is associated with the study of texts,

and in this study that means specifically media articles. For

the purposes of this article, we define discourse as a rela-

tively integrated system of meanings which are constructed

in language use (Fairclough 1998; Phillips and Hardy 2002;

Jokinen et al. 2002). Consequently, we are interested in the

discourses that bring the charisma of Barak Obama dis-

cursively into being (Parker 1992). We are not analysing,

for example, any deep psychodynamic processes lying

behind Obama’s charisma, but analysing the meaning

systems of Obama’s charisma in these texts. The content of

the discourses may or may not involve ideas that are part of

the psychodynamic theory (and/or other adopted theories).

Because meanings in social life are created as well as

discovered through discursive practices, we can say that

discourses create a space for particular representations of

the charisma of Barack Obama (Fairclough 1998; Lamsa

and Sintonen 2001).

Discourse analysis is a methodological approach which

is qualitative, interpretative and constructionist (Hardy

et al. 2004). According to Hardy et al. (2004), discourse

analysis differs from other qualitative methodologies in

that where other qualitative methodologies try to interpret

social reality as it exists, discourse analysis tries to uncover

the way that reality is produced. Descriptions of the cha-

risma of Obama are thus not direct observations of him, but

are discursive constructions located in time and place.

A focus on language function is a component of dis-

course analysis (Potter and Wetherell 1998). It refers to the

idea that language is used to perform social actions. In

other words, language is used to do things that are socially

situated, for example, to persuade readers of the impor-

tance of charismatic leadership, to emphasize some aspects

of charismatic leadership or to downplay the occurrence of

others, and so on. We may say that language is used as a

tool, to get things done (Potter and Wetherell 1998). For

example, Obama can be described using concepts that refer

to fatherly caring, and thus his charisma can be constructed

as that of a father.

Discourses are context bound. In particular, Potter and

Wetherell (1998, p. 33) emphasize this aspect of discourse

while interpreting the functions of discourses. In this study,

we are specifically interested in the different social con-

texts in which particular discourses of Obama’s charisma

occur. Language use does not operate in a vacuum, but

rather it maintains and perhaps transforms the social con-

texts from which it emerges, although the links between

language use and social contexts are complex (Phillips and

Hardy 2002). According to Fairclough and Wodak (1997),

the links are best seen as indirect and mediated rather than

direct.

Research Data and Method

The data for this study were collected from the media, and

comprise texts dealing with Barack Obama that were

published in the leading Finnish newspaper, Helsingin

Sanomat, between 20 January and 20 July 2009. We refer

to the source material here as texts and the results of our

interpretation as discourses. The texts are derived from

various sections of the newspaper and include different

types of journalistic writing: news stories, columns, edi-

torials and different kinds of features. Most of the texts

were written by the paper’s own journalists or correspon-

dents, but some of them were written by visiting writers.

This broad selection enabled us to obtain a varied set of

data from one newspaper, making it suitable for discourse

analysis.

The data were gathered from the electronic archives of

Helsingin Sanomat. The search engine found altogether

776 results for the search word ‘Barack Obama’ dated

within the 6-month study period. Of these 776 results, we

picked out those texts that referred to Obama’s image or

actions as a leader, obtaining the sample of 268 texts for

this study. We used Helsingin Sanomat because it is Fin-

land’s most widely read daily newspaper and its readers

broadly represent the population of the country. About

940,000 Finns read the paper daily, and the combined

readership of the printed and electronic versions is around

1.7 million (Helsingin Sanomat Medianetti 2010). Thus,

the newspaper’s reach is considerable in proportional

terms, given that Finland’s total population is 5.3 million.

The paper follows events in the United States quite closely,

and the content of its articles and news reports is more

diverse than in other Finnish newspapers.1

1 HS is an abbreviation for Helsingin Sanomat. The date of the text is

announced at the end of each piece of text or other references.


123

The methodological approach of our study is discourse

analysis, but we used a content analysis as the actual

research method. The method chosen for this study is data-

driven qualitative content analysis with an emphasis on

interpretation (Krippendorff 2004; Tuomi and Sarajarvi

2006). Miles and Huberman (1994) describe the data-dri-

ven qualitative content analysis as a three-phase process,

which is what we followed here (Fig. 1).

The first phase involved a reduction of the collected

study data, which meant discarding any and all material

that was irrelevant for the purposes of this study. In the

second phase, the reduced data were grouped into clusters

according to their content. The third phase of the analysis

was conceptualization, or sorting out content relevant for

the study and formulating our theoretical concepts. After

this, the research findings were more closely integrated

with the adopted theories and the researcher’s own reflec-

tions were added (Tuomi and Sarajarvi 2006, pp. 110–115).

Reasoning of Obama’s Charisma in the Texts

Obama’s charisma is reasoned in our data by presenting

him as a person with a powerful vision, a desire for change,

the willingness to cooperate and strive for efficiency and

productivity. The reasoning of his charisma is mainly

constructed in the texts from a person-centred viewpoint

that draws on the traditional Weberian idea of charisma as

a certain quality of an individual personality (Weber 1978)

as well as a certain behaviour of the individual (House

et al. 1991; Howell and Avolio 1992; Shamir et al. 1993;

Conger 1999). Obama’s above-mentioned exceptional

personal qualities and behaviour are thus presented as a key

reason for his charisma.

Obama is constructed as a realistic leader whose words

and deeds are in line. Thus, his charisma is constructed as

being due not only to his efficiency but also to the fact that

his behaviour is ethical. Obama’s ethical behaviour is

typically framed in the texts from his followers’ perspec-

tive. For example, followers’ talk about Obama’s favour-

able impact on the US is praised by his followers as

evidence of an open and unprejudiced way of acting and of

his willingness to make sacrifices. Obama’s followers’

confidence in his vision of the future is constructed as

important. Texts like these provide a reasoning for Oba-

ma’s charisma along lines particularly highlighted in

Conger and Kanungo’s (1987) attribution theory, which

claims that charisma emerges through follower experiences

and identification. In other words, it is the opinion of

others—followers—that plays a major role in the creation

of Obama’s charisma. Followers are presented as attribut-

ing numerous positive and exceptional traits and behaviour

to Obama, which according to attribution theory is a con-

dition for a leader’s charisma (e.g., Conger 1999, p. 157).

Another reasoning for Obama’s charisma may be linked

to the self-concept theory (Shamir et al. 1993). This theory

suggests that a leader can appeal to his or her followers’

weaknesses by his or her own behaviour and personality

and thereby influence the emergence of charisma. Although

our data do not reveal how conscious or calculated Oba-

ma’s actions may have been in this respect, the descriptions

of his followers’ views suggest that his behaviour appeals

to many individuals and groups of people. Obama’s cred-

ibility is explained by emphasizing a number of relevant

ideas, for example, his followers’ need to consolidate their

self-image in the midst of an economic crisis.

Crisis is known to be a situational factor that often

causes psychological pressures, and so this more psycho-

logical model of the self-concept theory is also relevant to

any attempt to explain Obama’s charisma. Attribution

theory similarly gives situational factors a particularly

strong role in the emergence of charisma. Consequently,

even if personal traits and behaviour are constructed as key

reasons for Obama’s charisma, situational factors are also

mentioned in the texts to strengthen the image of his

charismatic leadership. Crisis is seen as an important sit-

uational factor that heightens the demand for charismatic

leadership and enables social contagion among followers

(Conger 1999, p. 161). It must be remembered that the

study data were gathered at a time when the United States

and the rest of the world were in the throes of an economic

crisis. This can be a fruitful situation for the occurrence of

personal charisma (House et al. 1991). Weber (1978) even

argued that crisis is a necessary condition for the emer-

gence of charisma.

Finally, Obama’s communication style is seen as an

important factor contributing to his charismatic leadership.

It is frequently described in the texts as especially attrac-

tive. Indeed, Obama’s public appearances are generally

Grouping

Interpretation

Conceptualization

Reduction

Clusters of texts

Charisma discourses

Research findings in relation to the adopted theories

Relevant pieces of texts

Study data

Fig. 1 The content analysis process in this study (adapted from

Tuomi and Sarajarvi 2006, pp. 110–115)


123

considered successful, which is attributed to some extent to

his being sincere in his speech and actions. Looking at

Obama’s political career from a broader perspective, the

fact that his appearances have been experienced as attrac-

tive may have been very significant in helping to gradually

build up his popularity. This kind of growth into a char-

ismatic leader can be explained by the theory of social

contagion, as individuals convinced by Obama’s vision

draw other followers in. Later on, his increased media

visibility apparently facilitated his rise to the status of a

charismatic leader.

Discourses of Obama’s Charisma

Paternalistic Charisma

An analysis of the texts shows that Barack Obama’s cha-

risma is strongly associated with Steyrer’s paternalistic

charisma. Paternalistic charisma is connected to care, love,

the wisdom of a father and to God, but also to punishment

and order. A leader’s paternalistic charisma arises from his

protection and care of his followers, from his strength,

demandingness, benefaction and forgiveness. In this

respect, the ongoing economic crisis was constructed as an

especially significant context for Obama’s leadership,

because crisis situations tend to make people yearn for a

protective leader (Steyrer 1998, p. 818). The following

quotation reflects just this kind of fatherly, calming stance:

‘Obama was interpreted as calming down the Canadian

government’s fears of increased protectionism’ (HS.

22.1.2009). Reassurance here is explicitly personified in

Obama—not in the US or in the US government.

The reporting of Obama’s visit to Africa can also be

interpreted as reflecting a very paternalistic charisma. The

president’s partly African heritage is presented as being

crucial in his high popularity among Africans. When Oba-

ma’s speech to Africans during his visit is described, he is

constructed as displaying great authority, and the general

tone of his speech could be regarded as caring and protec-

tive. Especially significant from the African standpoint was

said to be the great trust shown in an outsider and their

respectful and attentive attitude to his words. For instance, in

his address to Africans, Obama authorized them to take a

more active role in building a better future, and also moti-

vated and encouraged them—using themes and patterns of

speech that fit a leader with paternalistic charisma: ‘There is

no reason why Africa shouldn’t be self-contained in terms of

food production’ (HS. 11.7.2009). His presentation of a

caring attitude gives rise to feelings of safety and inspires

dedication: ‘A change in policies towards poor countries so

that they are better able to take care of their food security was

welcomed by the aid organizations’ (HS. 11.7. 2009). In a

way, Obama is constructed as being able to open the soul of

the black people (Steyrer 1998, p. 818). At the same time, he

is constructed as being able to submit people to his care,

taking control over them and the worlds’ food production.

Paternalistic leadership charisma is also manifested in

this discourse so that it is presented as being important for

dealing with peace initiatives. For example, Obama is

described as introducing a totally new approach to US

relations with Islamic nations, including striving for

cooperation through dialogue and negotiation (HS.

28.1.2009). The alleged newness of the approach here

refers to the change from the previous president’s way of

operating. In many places, the texts in this discourse seem

to construct Obama as a very empathetic and understanding

leader. Obama’s attitude to U.S.–Cuban relations is actu-

ally depicted as ‘softer’ (HS. 14.4.2009). Again, the point

of comparison is Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush.

The discourse of paternalistic charisma further involves

the ability to evaluate one’s own actions critically and

acknowledge facts even when they are unpleasant, which

requires strong self-esteem and self-confidence (Steyrer

1998p. 819). Obama’s interview with the Al-Arabiya news

channel points to just this type of leadership (HS.

28.1.2009). These same factors were deemed significant in

terms of Obama’s leadership when his first nominee for the

Secretary of Health in his administration had to withdraw

because of tax issues. The withdrawal was considered a

major defeat for Obama (HS. 4.2. 2009). Yet the honest

evaluation of his own actions is another factor whose

importance is emphasized in the discourse by a comparison

of Obama to his predecessor in the White House.

Some texts in this discourse refer to justice and right,

which also display a clearly paternalistic charisma. The

protective aspect of this type of charisma is particularly

evident in news reports about the CIA’s interrogation

methods. Here too, the underlying idea is the widespread

opposition, in the US as elsewhere in the world, to the

techniques used during the Bush administration (HS. 26.4.

2009, HS. 18.4.2009). Obama is described as rejecting such

techniques, but also as being able to decide to absolve CIA

officers of responsibility and rule out prosecuting them for

acting in accordance with former regulations.

In the field of military operations, Obama is portrayed as

a leader of both issues and people, but descriptions of

charisma in this subject area are rather scarce. The texts

dealing with war construct Obama even as cowardly, and

his actions are described as suspected of weakening U.S.

national security (HS. 14.7. 2009). Reporting on the nuclear

arms ban is the only instance where Obama’s paternalistic

charisma is referred to. ‘The President of the US declared

his goal of a nuclear weapon-free world on Sunday. At the

same time he strongly denounced North Korea’s missile

experiment. North Korea broke the rules and therefore it has

to accept the consequences’ (HS. 6.4. 2009).


123

However there, too, charisma is marked by consequen-

tialism and motivation through reward and punishment,

which are features of paternalistic charisma. On the other

hand, for some people, this may represent admirable and

exemplary action, which is more reminiscent of a heroic

charisma. Paternalistic charisma does however emerge in

texts where Obama is presented as the creator of a world

without nuclear weapons: ‘We can’t succeed in the mission

on our own but we can lead it…He admitted, however, that

the nuclear-free era will most likely not begin during his

life time. ‘‘I am not naive; the aims will not be reached

quickly. But we must remain strong and say: Yes we can’’’

(HS 6.4. 2009). In this sense, Obama is constructed as a

creator of world peace and of a better earth.

To sum up, the contexts where this discourse occurs are

the economic crisis, poverty and famine, and military

operations, which are indeed suitable circumstances for

paternalistic charisma because it provides care and includes

the power to protect followers (Steyrer 1998). The dis-

course thus functions to create a father–child relationship

between Obama and his followers. Obama looks after

them, caring and protecting. In military operations, he

enforces peace and punishes those who do not accept the

rules. Thus, he is presented as creating a better world in the

future. Distancing Obama from the actions of his prede-

cessor functions as a discursive way of constructing Oba-

ma’s charisma.

Heroic Charisma

In general, heroism requires strong and powerful leader-

ship, and people tend to rely on a strong hero. The hero

himself is confident of his competence and, therefore, will

not subject himself to criticism or evaluation (Steyrer

1998). Obama’s strength as a heroic leader can be illus-

trated, for example, by this headline: ‘Clinton is again

peeking out from behind Obama’s powerful shadow’ (HS.

17.7.2009). The following excerpt also indicates a certain

power and greatness: ‘Obama has made things happen on a

huge number of fronts, and his actions simply absorb all the

oxygen in the media airspace’ (HS. 17.7. 2009).

According to Steyrer (1998, p. 819), heroic charisma

emerges when the shepherd fights for his flock and protects

it from danger. Often there is also a moral dimension in

heroism and heroic tales, with the hero pursuing good and

defending his followers against evil. In the texts of Hel-

singin Sanomat, this kind of heroic charisma for Obama,

based on the idea of his shepherding his flock, is con-

structed when the texts refer specifically to the defence of

the United States. For instance, one of the ideas behind the

wars in which the US has been engaged has been to oppose

terrorism, and this has involved contrasting good and evil,

with the US and Western nations representing good and

other nations that permit terrorism representing evil.

However, the description of these acts against terrorism is

now written in a different way from reports written in the

time of Obama’s predecessor, when such descriptions were

fairly negative in tone. Obama is represented as rejecting

terms such as ‘enemy fighter’ and ‘war against terrorism’

(HS. 24.1.2009, 1.7.2009) which is illustrative of this

change.

In the heroic discourse of charisma, comparisons to

predecessors in leadership positions significantly contribute

to the construction of charisma in new leaders (Steyrer

1998), and it is applied in the case of Obama in comparison

with George Bush, for example. Obama is represented as a

leader who uses power internationally more peacefully and

more constructively (Howell and Avolio 1992) than Bush,

which means that there is a moral stance in the discourse in

favour of Obama. One example is an editorial by Kari

Huhta, the chief foreign news editor of Helsingin Sanomat,

which begins as follows: ‘A sigh of delight and relief

echoed throughout Europe when Barack Obama moved

into the White House in Washington this week, and George

Bush moved out’ (HS. 20.1.2009). The actions of the two

presidents are often presented side by side, in such a way as

to imply that Obama is ‘redeeming’ the nation of Bush’s

wrongdoings. ‘His administration has to patch up his pre-

decessor’s actions and indiscretions, in NATO as well’

(HS. 24.2.2009). The comparisons also describe both risk

taking and adherence to principles, both of which are

characteristic of heroism (Steyrer 1998, pp. 819–820):

‘Obama wants to break away from the excesses of the

George W. Bush era. His first executive orders are in line

with this’ (HS 24.1. 2009).

The texts also portray Obama as trying to improve the

reputation of the US, and again his predecessor is used as a

point of comparison. ‘In the international arena Obama has

unquestionably returned to America the trust and prestige

that the Bush years had corroded. These are a condition for

US leadership, which is so badly needed in many areas’

(HS 29.4.2009). Even though Obama’s presidency was

only beginning in the period covered by this study, and his

practical accomplishments and results were so far quite

modest, the texts already contain descriptions of praise-

worthy and admirable sides of his leadership. Outside the

US, Obama was described as being admired at least in

Europe, and it was said that many nations would gladly

have welcomed the popular president for a state visit. For

instance, a headline in Helsingin Sanomat reads: ‘Europe’s

leaders are fighting for visits from Obama’ (HS. 7.2.2009).

Another example comes from texts about the G8 summit

meeting in Italy in July 2009, which noted the need for

stronger leadership and expressed the belief that Obama

would rise to the occasion: ‘In its Wednesday editorial, the

most influential US newspaper The New York Times


123

described Italy’s hosting as ‘inexcusably lax’ and sug-

gested that US President Barack Obama should now ‘lead

the way’ (HS. 9.7.2009).

Thus, the discourse of heroic charisma functions here to

distance Obama from Bush and distinguish between the

values and behaviour of Bush and Obama. Obama is pre-

sented as a leader who stands for the whole nation and is

admired internationally. He is constructed as a cooperative

and transforming leader, able to overcome the former

distinction of the USA from other countries as well as to

change the former negative image of the United States in

other parts of the world. In terms of the social context

which calls for this kind of heroic charisma, in which

Obama’s ability to cooperate is emphasized in contrast to

Bush’s hostile attitude, that is the context of international

politics, such as defence, climate change and international

cooperation in general. For example, the following state-

ment concerns climate change and the contrast between

Obama and Bush: ‘Barack Obama, the President of the

United States, again on Monday gave a new turn to the

decisions of his predecessor George W. Bush, when he

showed support to the limitations of California and other

states on car emissions. Obama announced that ‘‘the United

States is ready to lead’’ the world in action against climate

change. He said that the aim is to release Americans from

the authority of oil dictators in the Middle East, to increase

‘‘green workplaces’’ and to guarantee the future of the

planet to future generations’ (HS. 27.1.2009).

A hero acts for the good of his herd and is prepared to

take daring action and make daring decisions for the cause

he pursues (Steyrer 1998, p. 819). This side of heroism is

evident in the texts of heroic discourse reporting on Oba-

ma’s declaration that he will focus on the economic crisis

as well as reform of the health care system at a national

level. These are described as being huge and important

measures for America’s future, but tackling them demands

bold action because such reforms are opposed by many

Americans. Charismatic personalities are known to arouse

strong emotions in their followers (Conger et al. 2000).

However, heroes are able to take risks; they have cour-

age—to defend their cause, principles and values (Steyrer

1998) even if they meet with resistance.

In the following text, Obama is clearly presented as

being able to stand up against powerful and privileged

people in American society and to defend the population at

large, including the disadvantaged: ‘The new president

Barack Obama, a Democrat, on Wednesday dramatically

attacked the bonus culture of Wall Street by setting a salary

constraint of 500 000 dollars or about 390 000 euros for

managers whose companies are supported in future with

tax payers’ money. Obama and the finance minister, Tim-

othy Geithner, also rejected golden handshakes for man-

agers resigning from companies. According to Obama and

Geithner, managers can be paid additional salaries as

shares which, however, will not be cashable until tax

payers have received their financing back’ (HS. 5.2.2009).

A kind of national heroism is also implied in some of the

texts: ‘The Democrat president, who took office last

Tuesday, said that these decisions would take the US back

to the intentions of the founding fathers who wrote the

Constitution’ (HS. 23.1. 2009). The image of heroism is

further strengthened by the suggestion that Obama’s

reforms are directed towards saving those who are in dif-

ficulties. ‘The goal of President Barack Obama, who spoke

strongly in favour of the [economic stimulus] package, is to

create 3.5 million new jobs for the national economy,

which is suffering from a deep recession’ (HS. 12.2.2009).

Some of the reports include references to Robin Hood, the

classic hero who stands up for the poor and acts for the

public good: ‘Obama hopes that in about a week he will get

to sign a law giving taxpayers’ money to road construction

and renovation of schools, among other things. The Senate

cut back tens of billions of euros and raised the share of tax

cuts in the package’ (HS. 11.2. 2009).

A similar type of heroism in defence of the nation is

constructed in the context of justice. Obama is pictured as a

hero of the women’s movement and of trade unionism,

because his first legal amendments sought to improve

employee equality, particularly equality between genders.

The enactment of a law does not as such represent Steyrer’s

(1998) view of heroism, but in this particular case, acting

for an important cause can be considered to require courage

and risk taking on the leader’s part.

Thus, the discourse of the heroic charisma functions to

distance Obama from the advantaged and greedy people in

society in favour of the more disadvantaged and ordinary

people by juxtaposing the two groups. In this juxtaposition,

Obama is represented as a moral, just, caring and coura-

geous leader who defends the less advantaged rather than

those who are already privileged. It is in the national

context, then, with issues such as politics, health care,

justice and the US economy, that this kind of defending

heroism emerges.

Missionary Charisma

Missionary charisma often emerges in situations of crisis

and change. A leader with this kind of saviour-like cha-

risma is able to influence large masses of followers and

secure their support for new ideas (Steyrer 1998, p. 820).

Obama began his presidential term in the middle of an

economic crisis, and great expectations of his ability to

solve the crisis were attached to him from the very start

(HS. 20.1.2009). Many of the texts in this discourse are still

hopeful and expectant of saviour-like behaviour from


123

Obama: ‘People are fervently looking forward to his

speech, especially because of the many psychological

pressures in the economic crisis all about us, which Obama

is expected to relieve with the wave of a magic wand, like a

character in a fairytale’ (HS. 20.1. 2009).

A leader with missionary charisma can talk large masses

of people into willingly submitting their own will to his

(Steyrer 1998, 820). Obama’s key message ever since the

early days of his electoral campaign was to make change

happen and to create an atmosphere of hope. In the study

data, these ideas are more strongly associated with pater-

nalistic than with missionary charisma. Yet the grounds for

missionary charisma were nonetheless there, if we look at

Obama’s exceptionally high approval ratings at the

beginning of his presidency.

In the discourse, there are also some suggestions of the

euphoria that Obama caused in the US. This is especially

seen in texts at the start of the study period, when Obama

had just begun his term in office and hopes were high after

his victorious presidential campaign. The mood at Obama’s

inauguration was described as follows: ‘People screamed

ecstatically, waved American flags, jumped on each others’

backs, and wept when Obama ended his oath with the

words: ‘‘So help me God’’’ (HS.21.1.2009; HS 24.1. 2009).

Even though the event must indeed have been rapturous for

many followers, this type of description may also have

been used to emphasize its historic nature. Similar frenzy is

found nowhere in the data in connection with Obama’s

routine work, although his popularity is referred to in later

texts as well.

The situation changed in the course of the study period.

If we look at the data as a whole, we see that it is in texts

relating to economic issues where Obama is not described

as an especially charismatic leader. This is interesting,

because the situational factors prevailing at the time would

have been particularly favourable to the emergence of

saviour-like, missionary charisma. Texts dealing with the

economy are also those that most distinctly display both the

positive and the negative aspects of Obama’s leadership.

Indeed, descriptions of his actions remind one more of a

survival story than a ‘victory through hardship’ style heroic

tale. According to the texts, Obama remained confident

from the start that the economic crisis would be overcome,

which is an indication of credible leadership: ‘Barack

Obama believes that the severe economic crisis provides an

opportunity to reform the United States in a revolutionary

manner’ (HS. 10.3.2009).

As a summary of this discourse, the social context in

which the missionary charisma occurs is the political and

economic arena, in America and the world. The discourse

functions to control change and crisis, and protect against

threats. The content of the discourse is to bring hope to the

US and the world.

Majestic Charisma

Majestic charisma is usually born through heroic struggle,

but more strongly than by heroism it is marked by the

leader’s wisdom, self-confidence and reliability and his rise

to being above criticism (Steyrer 1998, pp. 821–822). In

the texts, Obama’s majestic charisma did not derive from

heroism as the US president; this was temporally impos-

sible for the simple reason that his term in office had only

just begun. Instead, his heroism can be detected from the

story of his life, which is especially interesting in the

American context. Many people are said to find his life

story awe-inspiring. Obama’s charisma is also tied more

generally to the history of black people and other ethnic

groups in the US. Barack Obama made history by rising

from a multicultural middle-class family to become

America’s leader, which is constructed as having given him

majestic charisma. A clear sign of his regal charisma is that

he is said not to have been born a king but to have come

from a simple background, and to have defeated his ene-

mies, in this case white presidential candidates, in battle;

‘…already before the election the Finnish media declared

that the only thing that could prevent Obama from winning

was the prejudice of white Americans’ (HS. 27.1.2009).

To become king is a goal whose realisation entails great

sacrifices. The king is usually expected to be an old man.

Obama, however, is not old, but he is described as being

part of a succession of struggles that have already taken

place before him: ‘‘‘This is the reason Martin Luther King

lived and died. His dream has become reality’’, said Janice

Washington, 54, from Dallas, Texas. Black, white, yellow,

brown and Americans of all colours were unsparing in their

praise when they considered the significance of that

Tuesday for the history of their country’ (HS. 21.1.2009).

A leader with this type of kingly charisma is self-assured

and beyond all criticism, which also means that he will

usually be in a powerful position. His heroic background

gives him additional power, won through follower appre-

ciation (Steyrer 1998, pp. 821–822). Obama’s life story is

also described as having a link to Islamic culture, as his

father was a Muslim. This may have influenced the way

Obama set out to improve US relations with the Islamic

world with a confidence and boldness that bears signs of

majestic charisma: ‘President Barack Obama is dissatisfied

with the cliquishness of the Iraqi leaders, because it is

slowing down the achievement of national unity, which is

necessary to secure stability’ (HS. 21.2.2009).

In this discourse around Obama, there is a kind of

spirituality, and he is sometimes seen as a personification

of fate: ‘The accession of Obama to be the first black

President closes the circle which was drawn by the writers

of the U.S. constitution, by Lincoln and those who fought

for civil rights’ (HS. 13.2. 2009). Obama’s heroic life story


123

reflects majestic charisma in the descriptions not only of

the great expectations attached to him but also of his heavy

responsibilities. In fact, the public image of Obama con-

structed by the texts is so imposing that it would be difficult

indeed for him to live up to such an image in practice. The

country’s black population imposes additional pressures on

him, even though the presidency in itself is a huge

accomplishment from that point of view.

The social context in which majestic charisma is called

for is American culture and race relations, which has

separated whites and blacks, and includes the struggles for

justice, equality and civil rights. His life story, coming

from a simple background to become the President of the

US, strengthens the charisma. He is understood to be a wise

leader who can offer his followers high hopes and expec-

tations and even change the history of his people.

Summary and Conclusions

Summary of the Findings

The aim of the study was to examine how Barack Obama’s

charisma was constructed discursively in the Finnish press

during the first 6 months of his presidency. We used a

discourse analytical research method to study texts related

to Obama in Finland’s leading newspaper, Helsingin San-

omat. On the whole, the expectations for Obama’s presi-

dency were extremely high in the texts. The articles in our

study data created a very enthusiastic and optimistic

atmosphere around Obama. There was excitement, but also

a sense of caution not to rejoice before anything concrete

had been accomplished. Some texts talked about Ameri-

cans who were overjoyed by the mere fact of Obama’s

election as the first black US president. However, this

particular aspect did not receive as much attention in this

study as was found, for example, by Brown (2011), who

used data collected in the US to study Obama as a great

leader. Some topics, for example, ethical problems con-

nected particularly to racism and the white male dominance

among great-man leaders, did not receive as much media

attention in Finland as elsewhere. One reason for this may

be that the US is a much more multicultural society than

Finland, so the topic may generate much more debate there

than in Finland.

Our first research question concerned the explanations

for Obama’s charisma given in the studied texts. On the

whole, Obama’s charisma was explained mostly from a

personal point of view with the emphasis on his excep-

tional and attractive personality as well as his efficiency,

his morality and his excellent communication skills. In

particular, followers’ attitudes were presented as having a

key role in the construction of Obama’s charismatic per-

sonality and behaviour. In addition to having extraordinary

personal characteristics and to behaving in an exceptional

way, the crisis situation provided a platform for explaining

Obama’s charisma in the texts. We conclude that present-

ing charismatic leadership features and behaviour as being

based on followers’ needs and evaluations, combined with

a crisis situation, is a powerful discursive way to convince

and reason charismatic leadership, such as Obama’s. This

also suggests that in the study of charismatic leadership, an

integrative approach combining several different view-

points can be fruitful.

The main findings concerning the discourses are sum-

marized in Table 1, in which the discourses of Obama’s

charisma are presented in types with the answers to

research questions 2–4.

Our findings question the idea of a single form of

charismatic leadership and give empirical support to

Table 1 Discourses of Obama’s charisma by the types of charisma

Discourses research

questions

Father: paternalistic charisma Hero: heroic charisma Saviour: missionary

charisma

King: majestic charisma

What is the content

of charisma in the

discourses?

Strong peacemaker and creator of

a better world for poor people

Morally just and caring

leader, builder of

cooperation and

defender of the

disadvantaged people

Builder of the global

community with new

hope, capability to

manage changes and

crises

Winner of the fight for

justice for diverse people,

capability to make the

dreams to true and change

history

What are the

functions of the

discourses of

charisma?

To underline the significance of

care, protection and peace; to

show the bad results of

unethicality; to distance Obama

from Bush

To distance Obama from

Bush and the

advantaged and greedy

people

To bring new hope to

USA and the world; to

highlight that saving

and protecting people is

possible

To show through Obama’s

life story that success is

possible to all; to

convince that justice can

be achieved

What kind of a social

context calls for a

particular discourse

of charisma to

occur?

Poverty and famine, military

operations, diplomacy

International politics and

cooperation, national

economic and health

care reforms

Political and economic

crisis

The state and history of

human rights


123

Steyrer’s (1998) framework in which there are various

types of charismatic leadership. Furthermore, this study

contributes to Steyrer’s framework by showing that dif-

ferent social contexts give rise to certain types of charisma.

The contexts of poverty and famine, military operations

and diplomacy were crucial in constructing Obama’s

paternalistic charisma. Such contexts were described as

requiring care, protection and peaceful cooperation as well

as the ability to punish wrongdoers. In general, Obama’s

paternalistic charisma was constructed so that he was

described as being a father-like leader who can create a

better world for poor people and end war in the world.

The contexts of international politics as well as national

economic and health care reforms in the US were the

background against which heroic charisma could occur.

Because a hero needs to overcome dangers and risks to be

able to accomplish his task (Steyrer 1998), Obama was

constructed in this discourse as a moral person who is

different from his predecessor and who aims to overcome

the problems caused by the unacceptable behaviour of

George W. Bush as well as of greedy and advantaged

people generally in the US. Thus, clearly distancing

Obama from these attitudes and constructing him as an

opposite actor were key discursive ways of constructing

his heroism.

Obama’s missionary charisma was constructed in the

context of the worldwide political and economic crisis,

which calls for a leader who can give hope to the world.

Hope and change, both elements of visionary leadership,

were described as being important themes in Obama’s

electoral campaign and as continuing into his presidency.

Especially at the start, his missionary charisma was built

strongly on his earlier personal background. The vision and

the goals for change defined by Obama called for com-

mitment to a better future in the long term.

This is also seen in the discourse of majestic charisma,

which occurred in the contexts of past injustices and fights

for human rights in the US. In this type of discourse,

Obama’s life story from a black family to being Number

One in the world was used as an important discursive way

to build his majestic charisma. His exceptional life story

was described as attracting interest in him as well as

inspiring, motivating and convincing people of his excel-

lence. In this discourse, he was created as the black king

who can put right the unjust history of the US.

Consequently, even if Obama’s charisma was con-

structed in many convincing ways in this study, we con-

clude that it is particularly his exceptional life story which

had a key role in creating Obama as a charismatic leader. In

general, we think that positive personalization, particularly

in a narrative form when it has its roots in practice, can act

as a powerful discursive means of constructing charismatic

leadership in publicity.

Some important ethical implications can be drawn from

this study. The texts often stressed the importance of eth-

ical characteristics and ethical behaviour in Obama’s cha-

risma. Ethics was understood in the studied texts as a

crucial part of charismatic leadership, as suggested, for

example, by Howell and Avolio (1992). Such ethical fea-

tures of Obama as his willingness to use his power to serve

the welfare not only of Americans but also of the inter-

national community in general was described as significant.

In particular, the range and number of his followers toge-

ther with their peaceful vision for humankind were used to

construct a strong foundation for his ethical charisma.

Obama was also described as a principled and caring per-

son and someone who is able to encourage people to see

the world from many diverse angles, whether American,

African, Muslim or something else. Furthermore, his per-

sonal experiences during the course of his life, some of

which have been difficult ones, increased the credibility of

his ethical charisma. In the long run, the presentation of

this kind of ethical charisma cannot only be skilful

impression management (Conger 1999) but requires that

what is said needs to be lived and shown in practice.

Otherwise, enduring ethical charisma is suspect.

One other point needs making from an ethical view-

point. Obama’s charisma was constructed clearly in the

heroic discourse as well as to some extent in the pater-

nalistic discourse as depending on his positioning as an

opposite force to, for example, the former president and to

greed in American society. Even if this way of constructing

charisma is often used and is evidently influential in

political leadership, it raises the ethical concern of whether

ethicality should and can be based on distance. Distance in

its extreme form reduces and even eliminates discussion

and dialogue between people, but these activities are

important for people to be able to live constructively

together.

Discussion on Research Limitations and Further

Research

The limitations of this study must be borne in mind. Our

study only captures the view of one leading Finnish

newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat, and ignores both other

societies and other types of data. However, with its large

sample of articles from the beginning of the period of

Obama’s presidency it, provides a broad and varied picture

of the topic in Finland. When considering societal differ-

ences in relation to leadership, any generalization to other

societal circumstances should be made with caution.

Because interpretations of charisma can differ in different

societies, we suggest that the question of how this subject

makes sense in the US and other societies should be studied

empirically in the future. Furthermore, the use of other


123

types of data, such as interviews and survey data would

deepen our understanding of the matter. It is also important

to investigate the construction of other political leaders’

charisma in the world. In particular, a gender perspective

should be taken into consideration because charismatic

leadership is often understood as a male phenomenon

(Steyrer 1998). For example, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the

president of Liberia who received the Nobel Peace Prize

for 2011, would be an interesting woman presidential case

for future research.

Because our study was carried out only in Finland,

which is a northern European society, it is appropriate to

briefly discuss the situation in other parts of the world. In

general, if the study had taken place in another continent or

country, there might have been some differences but also

some similarities in the construction of Obama’s charisma.

For example, in Africa, the expectations for Obama’s

administration were extremely high (Prendergast and

Norris 2009). As the first president of the United States

with immediate African roots, Obama had the chance to

change relations between the USA and Africa, and to be a

peacemaker in or between countries at war such as Sierra

Leone, Mozambique, Burundi and southern Sudan. His

diplomatic capacity for peace and change in many different

political and economic circumstances in Africa was highly

valued (Prendergast and Norris 2009). He was evidently a

king with majestic charisma for black Africa, as we found

in this study. In Africa, the election of a black US president

had great symbolic value (Erikson 2008).

In Latin America too there is a large black population,

and Obama’s election was a welcome event for them. In

addition, the previous Bush administration had damaged

US–Latin American relations and Obama was needed to

repair the damage. Latin America expected key changes for

renewing US leadership. The challenges that Obama faced

concerned business, and political, economic and structural

reforms in Latin America. There were big issues, such as

the trade agreement between Colombia and the US,

Guantanamo, immigration from Mexico, and relations with

Cuba, among others (Erikson 2008). In Latin America,

Obama’s top priorities, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq

and the financial crisis, were of much less importance

(Erikson 2010) than they are in Eruope, where this study

took place, and the Latin American media focused on

issues of social justice such as poverty, racism, equality

and immigrant rights when Obama was elected. These can

be interpreted as being linked to missionary and paternal-

istic charisma. However, soon after the start of Obama’s

presidency, the focus of the media shifted from justice and

rights to the economy and other practical issues (Kodrich

2009).

In his speech in Turkey, Obama emphasized Turkey’s

unique role as a part both of the Western community and

the Muslim world. In Turkey, issues of peace and war were

of the greatest importance, including the wars in Iraq and

Afghanistan, as well as peace and security between Israel

and Palestine. Obama’s goal in Turkey was to build a kind

of model partnership, and to this end he carefully avoided

Turkey’s own political issues with the Kurds or in Armenia

(Aliriza 2009). As for Europe, Russia turned out to be

problematic for Obama in some ways. In 2008, Obama

hinted to President Medvedev that the US might not build

missile defence sites in Europe after all. Obama has also

discouraged NATO enlargement to Georgia and Ukraine,

and he has discontinued the US practice of urging Russia to

democratise (Valasek 2009). Here, we can see hints of a

heroism that both aims to build cooperation in international

politics and distances Obama’s actions from those of his

predecessor.

This short discussion shows that it seems possible that

discourses of Obama’s paternalistic, heroic, missionary and

majestic charisma could be found in other parts of the

world as well as in Finland. However, the details of the

discourses might not be the same. In general, we high-

lighted four different discourses of Obama’s charisma in

this study, but others could be found as well in different

historical and socio-cultural environments. That is a topic

for future studies.

References

Aaltio-Marjosola, I., & Takala, T. (2000). Charismatic leadership,

manipulation and complexity of organizational life. Journal of

Workplace Learning, 12(4), 146–158.

Aliriza, B. (2009). Turkey update: President Obama’s trip to Turkey.

Retrieved Jan 4, 1.2012, from http://forums.csis.org/files/media/

csis/pubs/090408turkeyupdate.fi.

Avolio, B. J., Rotundo, M., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2009a). Early life

experiences as determinants of leadership role occupancy. The

importance of parental influence and rule breaking behavior. The

Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 329–342.

Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009b). Leadership:

current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review

of Psychology, 60, 421–449.

Ball, K., & Carter, C. (2002). The charismatic gaze: everyday

leadership practices and the ‘‘new’’ manager. Management

Decision, 40(6), 552–565.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expecta-

tions. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership

(2nd ed.). New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of

reality. New York: Doubleday.

Bligh, M. C., & Kohles, J. C. (2009). The enduring allure of charisma.

How Barack Obama won the historic 2008 presidential election.

The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 483–492.

Brown, C. B. (2011). Barack Obama as the great man. Communi-

cative constructions of racial transcendence in white-male elite

discourses. Communication Monographs, 78(4), 535–556.


123

http://forums.csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/090408turkeyupdate.fi

http://forums.csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/090408turkeyupdate.fi

Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma, & leadership in organizations.

London: Sage.

Bryman, A. (2011). Research methods in the study of leadership. In

A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson, & M. Uhl-Bien

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of leadership (pp. 15–28). London:

Sage.

Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2003). Business research methods. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Burns, J. M. G. (1979). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and

organizational analysis. Aldershot: Gower.

Campbell, S. M., Ward, A. J., Sonnenfeld, J. A., & Agle, B. R. (2008).

Relational ties that bind. Leader–follower relationship dimen-

sions and charismatic attribution. Leadership Quarterly, 19,

556–568.

Collinson, D., & Grint, K. (2005). Editorial: The leadership agenda.

Leadership, 1(1), 5–9.

Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in

organizations: An insider’s perspective on these developing

streams of research. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 145–179.

Conger, J. A. (2011). Charismatic leadership’. In A. Bryman, D.

Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The

SAGE handbook of leadership (pp. 86–102). London: Sage.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory

of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of

Management Review, 12(4), 637–647.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1994). Charismatic leadership in

organizations: Perceived behavioral attributes and their mea-

surement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(5), 439–452.

Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic

leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 21, 747–767.

Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Charismatic leadership viewed

from above: The impact of proactive personality. Journal of

Organizational Behaviour, 21, 63–75.

DeGroot, T., Kiker, D., & Cross, T. (2000). A meta-analysis to review

organizational outcomes related to charismatic leadership.

Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 17, 356–371.

Deluga, R. J. (1998). American presidential proactivity, charismatic

leadership, and rated performance. Leadership Quarterly, 9(3),

265–292.

Erikson, D. P. (2008). Obama, and Latin America. Magic of realism.

World Policy Institute. Retrieved Jan 4, 2012, from http://

www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/Erikson_Obama-Latin%20

America_Jan09%20(2).pdf.

Erikson, D.P. (2010). The Obama administration and Latin America:

Towards a new partnership? Working Paper No. 6. Retrieved Jan

4, 2012, from www.cigionline.org/publications/workingpapers.

Fairclough, N. (1998). Discourse and social change. Oxford: Polity

Press.

Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T.

A. Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction, discourse studies:

A multidisplinary introduction (Vol. 2, pp. 258–284). London:

Sage.

Fairhurst, G. T. (2011). Discursive approaches to leadership. In A.

Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson, & M. Uhl-Bien

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of leadership. London: Sage.

Fiol, C. M., Harris, D., & House, R. (1999). Charismatic leadership:

strategies for effecting social change. Leadership Quarterly,

10(3), 449–482.

Freud, S. (1955). Group psychology and analysis of ego. London:

Hogarth, and Son.

Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship:

A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Review,

23(1), 32–58.

Glynn, M. A., & Dowd, T. J. (2008). Charisma (un)bound emotive

leadership in Martha Stewart Living magazine, 1990–2004.

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(1), 71–93.

Hardy, C., Harley, B., & Phillips, N. (2004). Discourse analysis and

content analysis: Two solitudes? Qualitative Methods, 2(1),

19–22.

Hardy, C., Palmer, I., & Phillips, N. (2000). Discourse as a strategic

resource’. Human Relations, 53(9), 1227–1248.

Hayibor, S., Agle, B. R., Sears, G. J., Sonnenfeldt, J. A., & Ward, A.

(2011). Value congruence and charismatic leadership in CEO–

top manager relationships: An empirical investigation. Journal

of Business Ethics, 102, 237–254.

Hogg, M. A. (2005). Social identity and leadership. In D. M. Messick

& R. M. Kramer (Eds.), The psychology of leadership. New

perspectives and research (pp. 53–80). New York: Erlbaum.

House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., & Woycke, J. (1991). Personality and

charisma in the U.S. presidency: A psychological theory of

leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36,

364–396.

Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic

leadership: Submission or liberation. Academy of Management

Executive, 6(2), 43–54.

Jokinen, A., Juhila, K., & Suoninen, E. (2002). Diskurssianalyysi

liikkeessa. 2. painos [Doing discourse analysis]. Jyvaskyla:

Vastapaino.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and

transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative

validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755–768.

Kerr, R. (2008). Discourse and leadership; using the paradigm of the

permanent state of emergency. Critical Discourse Studies, 5(3),

201–216.

Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects

of three core charismatic leadership components on performance

and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(1), 36–51.

Kodrich, K. (2009). Defenders of Inequality? An examination of

online news media’s coverage of social justice issues in Mexico,

Nicaragua, Colombia. Venezuela, Argentina and Chile. A paper

prepared for 2009 Congress the Latin America Studies Associ-

ation, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June 11–14, 2009.

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis. An introduction to its

methodology (2nd ed.). California: Sage.

Lamsa, A.-M., & Hautala, T. (2008). Organisaatiokayttaytymisen

perusteet, 4. ed [Introduction to organizational behavior].

Helsinki, Edita.

Lamsa, A.-M., & Sintonen, T. (2001). A discursive approach to

understanding women leaders in working life. Journal of

Business Ethics, 34(3–4), 255–267.

Lamsa, A.-M., & Tiensuu, T. (2002). Representations of the woman

leader in Finnish business media articles. Business Ethics: A

European Review, 11(4), 363–374.

Meindl, J. R. (1989). On leadership: An alternative to conventional

wisdom .Conference paper, Fourth International Conference on

Organizational Symbolism and Corporate Culture.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data-analysis.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Neuberger, O. (1990). Fuhren und gefuhrt werden. Stuttgart: Enke.

Northouse, P. G. ( 2004). Leadership: Theory and practice (3rd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Northouse, P. G. ( 2007). Leadership: Theory and practice (4th ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Ospina, S., & Foldy, E. (2009). A critical review of race and ethnicity

in the leadership literature: Surfacing context, power, and

collective dimensions of leadership. Leadership Quarterly,

20(6), 876–896.

Parker, M. (1992). Discourse dynamics. London: Routledge.


123

http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/Erikson_Obama-Latin%20America_Jan09%20(2).pdf



http://www.cigionline.org/publications/workingpapers

Pastor, J.-C., Meindl, J. R., & Mayo, M. C. (2002). A network effects

model of charisma attributions. Academy of Management

Journal, 45(2), 410–420.

Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis: Investigating

processes of social construction. Sage University papers series

on qualitative research methods, Vol. 50. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1998). Discourse and social psychology.

London: Sage.

Prendergast, J., & Norris, J. (2009). Obama, Africa and peace.

Retrieved Jan 4, 2012, from www.enoughproject.org.

Sankowsky, D. (1995). The charismatic leader as narcissist’. Orga-

nizational Dynamics, 23(4), 57–71.

Schweitzer, A. (1974). Theory and political charisma. Comparative

Studies in Society and History, 16(2), 150–181.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational

effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory.

Organizational Science, 4(4), 577–594.

Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Organizational and contextual

influences on the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic

leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 257–284.

Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of

charismatic leader behaviors in military units: Subordinates’

attitudes, unit characteristics and superiors’ appraisals of leader

performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 387–409.

Steyrer, J. (1998). Charisma and the archetypes of leadership.

Organizational Studies, 19(5), 807–828.

Takala, T. (1998). Plato on leadership. Journal of Business Ethics,

17(7), 785–798.

Takala, T. (2009). Charismatic leader’s dilemma: How to be a good

leader in the context of racism? China-USA Business Review,

8(1), 46–53.

Tuomi, J., and Sarajarvi, A. (2006). Laadullinen tutkimus ja

sisallonanalyysi [Qualitative research and content analysis].

Jyvaskyla: Tammi.

Valasek, T. (2009). Obama, Russia and Europe, Centre of European

reform. Retrieved Jan 5, 2012, from www.cer.org.uk.

Weber, M. (1978). In G. Roth & C. Wittich (Eds.), Economy and

society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Los Angeles:

University of California Press.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). New Jersey:

Prentice Hall.


123

http://www.enoughproject.org

http://www.cer.org.uk

Documents

Discourses of Charisma: Barack Obama’s First 6 Months as the President of the USA