Understanding Charismatic Leadership

Leadership style is a critical factor in political success, shaping not only a political party's policies and strategies but also voters' perceptions. Charisma has a significant influence on the success of many leaders. Think Tony Blair, Barack Obama, Margaret Thatcher, or the ultimate war leader, Winston Churchill. And despite his extreme behaviour, Donald J. Trump engenders great loyalty in his followers. All are hugely charismatic figures.

Alternatively, leaders thought of as non-charismatic are negatively labelled as boring or robotic. ?Kier Starmer was accused of this in a recent leadership debate. Yet he has overseen the turnaround of a Labour Party that, four years ago, could not have contemplated winning a landslide victory in an election.

So, how important is charisma for a leader to be successful?

Understanding Charismatic Leadership

?

Charismatic leaders are often characterised by their ability to inspire and energise their followers. Cambridge University says that charisma is a power that: "allows some people to influence others and 'attract their attention and admiration.'" What makes them charismatic is indefinable. They possess a magnetic charm and persuasive communication skills to rally people around their vision. This leadership style is not just about being likeable; it's about creating a strong emotional connection with the electorate.

?

Charismatic leaders often use rhetoric that appeals to the populace's hopes, fears, and dreams, positioning themselves as the embodiment of change or continuity, depending on what is most needed.

?

Voters are drawn to them because they stand out from the crowd. Boris Johnson's unkempt hair, the feeling he was happy to be seen as a naughty schoolboy, and his insistent positivity all spoke to an electorate tired of Theresa May's dogged pursuit of a Brexit deal. When it comes to leaders, the electorate rarely wants someone in their own image.

?

Charismatic leadership has been shown to impact people's behaviour. An Arizona State University study analysed COVID communications across every US state in 2020. The more a Governor displayed charisma, the more people were prepared to follow the rules. The research head, Associate Professor Ulrich Jensen, said, "People respond not only with their minds but with their hearts. It matters how policies are communicated."

However, Jensen does not believe charisma is a natural gift. He believes charisma is a set of communication skills that can be learned. He says, "It's about ... making one's convictions clear and relatable through metaphors, stories, and analogies. These help people understand and identify with the message."

Understanding Non-Charismatic Leadership

On the other hand, non-charismatic leaders might lack the flamboyant appeal of their charismatic counterparts but often compensate with a reputation for competence, reliability, and a systematic approach to governance. These leaders might not inspire fervent devotion, but they are seen as a safe pair of hands, particularly in times of stability or crisis where practical solutions and managerial skills are paramount.

Churchill said of Clement Attlee: "He is a modest man; he has much to be modest about." Attlee was an introvert, committed to service and ensuring even minor details were considered. He was not charismatic.

Attlee won the 1945 general election by a landslide despite Churchill being considered the great war leader. He was one of the most uncharismatic leaders imaginable. Yet Attlee's cabinet delivered some of the most radical changes in twentieth-century Britain, including introducing the NHS and the Welfare State and privatising industries such as the railways, coal, electricity and gas. He did so because he ensured clear plans were executed, was detail-focused, and demanded his cabinet stay within the boundaries he set despite containing some of the most charismatic maverick ministers.

The UK's Political Landscape

The UK election offers a fascinating contrast between these two types of leadership. The major party leaders present a stark dichotomy in charisma and leadership style, each bringing unique strengths and weaknesses to their campaigns.

The two main party leaders are definitely in the non-charismatic camp. Rishi Sunak is as much of a technocrat as Kier Starmer.

But charisma can play a fundamental role in people's choices. Boris Johnson won an 80-seat majority in 2019 because of the way he engaged with the UK electorate. Margaret Thatcher swept into Downing Street in 1979 after the 'winter of discontent' and remained for twelve years. Conversely, despite many internal conflicts and economic troubles, John Major, a distinctly non-charismatic figure, won a conservative majority against all the odds in 1992. His two rivals, the more charismatic Neil Kinnock and Paddy Ashdown could not overcome what the public saw as a more trustworthy figure.

The Impact on the Election

The UK election illustrates how both charismatic and non-charismatic leaders can be influential, albeit in different ways. Charismatic leaders might drive higher voter engagement and enthusiasm, potentially increasing turnout and attracting a diverse coalition of supporters. However, their reliance on emotional appeal can sometimes lead to criticism of style over substance.

The most charismatic leader in the 2024 election is Reform UK's Nigel Farage. When he entered the fray as leader, Reform's poll ratings shot up. Yet several recent missteps, including a sympathetic view of Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine, have seen support fall back. It is the threat of the charismatic leader. The self-belief that underpins their charisma can also make them complacent. And that can have very damaging consequences. David Cameron firmly believed the Brexit referendum would result in a remain vote. His belief in his view of the world proved disastrous to remainers as the country voted for Brexit.

While potentially less exciting, non-charismatic leaders offer a sense of stability and competence that can reassure voters. Their campaigns might not generate the same level of excitement, but their focus on pragmatic governance can attract voters who are sceptical of charismatic rhetoric and prefer a more measured approach.

Max Weber, the German sociologist, identified that 'legitimate authority' comes from three sources:

• Traditional authority – things should always be done this way.
• Rational-legal authority – The logical sense that things should be done within agreed rules in a cohesive system
• Charisma – An individual set apart from others with 'supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities.'

?

Often, we choose leaders for the first two reasons.

John Major was elected because he was deemed trustworthy and because people felt safe with who they knew. At the time, the country had lived under a Conservative government for thirteen years. Neil Kinnock, for all his rhetoric, could not convince them that he was a safe pair of hands.

Rational-legal authority plays its part. Richard Nixon was forced to resign after the Watergate scandal in 1974. Still, his successor, Gerald Ford, could not win the following presidential election against the non-charismatic Jimmy Carter because he was tainted with that brush.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of charismatic versus non-charismatic leadership depends on the context and the specific needs and desires of the electorate at any given time.

In the UK's dynamic political environment, both types of leaders play crucial roles, offering voters a choice between visionary change and steady stewardship. In the last fourteen years, we have had five Prime Ministers, two of whom, Boris Johnson and David Cameron, were considered charismatic. Both left their positions under a shadow. Yet the three non-charismatic figures have also been left in disgrace, Liz Truss particularly vilified, having been in power for just 49 days. Indeed, she is an interesting paradox. Nobody would call her charismatic. She finds it hard to engage with the electorate, demonstrates little empathy, and is laser-focused on specific goals. Yet she behaved like a charismatic leader, exhibiting an abundance of self-confidence, listening to few around her, and building her policies firmly around her personality.

Polls suggest we will see a change of government, and that will not be due to Kier Starmer's highly charismatic leadership. The country needs a sense of stability, integrity, and reflection, which are not qualities a charismatic leader is ideally suited to deliver.

As the new parliament unfolds, the interplay between these leadership styles will continue to shape the political landscape, providing valuable insights into the complex dynamics of voter behaviour and electoral success. The Conservatives will replace Rishi Sunak after the election. It is not clear who that will be. However, a charismatic leader would be an interesting counterpoint to Starmer's natural, thoughtful style.

Whether through the compelling vision of a charismatic leader or the reliable competence of a non-charismatic one, the future of the UK's political leadership will be defined by its people's diverse preferences and priorities.