I recently put together an annotated bibliography of six good sources of information on the academic use of e-books. This is a very interesting topic that will shape the future of education for years to come. The literature reviewed below provide a good sense of developments in this area.
Polanka, S. (Ed.). (2011). No shelf required: E-books in libraries. Chicago, IL: American
Library Association. Retrieved from ebrary.
Polanka (2011) assembles contributions from academic librarians, faculty, publishers and vendors in this collection that “offers readers an opportunity to explore the challenges that e-books bring to our libraries” (p. xii). The text looks at the past and future of e-books, from Project Guttenberg to Google Books and beyond. For example, Google Books’ partnerships with academia, beginning with agreements with institutions such as Cambridge University Press, Harvard and the University of Michigan, are examined in detail. A chapter on The Academic Library e-Book discusses the University of Texas at Austin’s early foray into the world of e-books, with a contract with NetLibrary in 1999, and its “highly experimental approach to collecting e-books” (p. 79). Another case study of interest examines Pennsylvania State University’s Sony E-Book Reader Project.
Polanka, S. (Ed.). (2012). No shelf required 2: Use and management of electronic books.
Chicago, IL: American Library Association.
With the rapid changes in the e-book market, Polanka (2012) again gathers a team of experts to provide multi-faceted perspectives on e-books, including a spotlight on university libraries on the leading-edge of the e-book revolution. These include the Stanford University Engineering Library, the University of Texas at San Antonio Applied Engineering and Technology Library, and the University of Texas at Austin Undergraduate Library. The Stanford case study, for example, showcases a new library that will eventually be dedicated exclusively to digital materials and that features a gadget bar where students can borrow e-readers. Another innovative project profiled is the iPad Loaner Program of the Oberlin College Library in Ohio.
Cassidy, E. D., Martinez, M., & Shen, L. (2012). Not in love, or not in the know? Graduate
student and faculty use (and non-use) of e-books. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38(6), 326-332. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2012.08.005
Cassidy, Martinez and Shen (2012) present findings from a study conducted at the San Houston State University on e-book usage by graduate students and faculty. The study revealed 38% of respondents had used the library’s e-books, split almost equally between graduate students and faculty. Among non-users, graduate students were much more open to trying e-books in future (68%) than faculty (47%). The study also found a statistically significant difference between the average age of those who used e-books (37 years) and those who did not (41 years). The researchers speculate that the low usage of e-books may be attributed to “a disconnection between library marketing and users,” (p. 331), but clearly, features like the print book’s tangibility and the fact that it promotes “active reading techniques such as annotation and highlighting” (p. 329) continue to make it an attractive choice for advanced university researchers.
Weisberg, M. (2011). Student attitudes and behaviors towards digital textbooks. Publishing
Research Quarterly, 27(2), 188-196. doi: 10.1007/s12109-011-9217-4
In his two-year, ongoing longitudinal study of students at the Suffolk University Sawyer Business School, Weisberg (2011) examines how access to, and use of, various popular e-devices to read electronic textbooks affects students’ attitudes, behaviors and learning. The study compared findings for students who used the electronic devices and those who used print textbooks. Preliminary results show “student attitudes and behaviors are becoming receptive to and accepting of using digital textbooks each year” (p. 188). Weisberg (2011) also found no significant difference in learning outcomes among students who used different e-devices and those who used paper textbooks. The study documents a significant shift in student perceptions and behaviors about electronic textbooks after a year’s participation in the study, from a general impression that e-textbooks are better suited for elementary education to an increased preference for electronic textbooks.
Staiger, J. (2012). How e-books are used. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 51(4), 355-365.
Retrieved from Teacher Reference Center Database.
Staiger (2012) presents a literature review of 24 studies conducted between 2006 and 2011 on e-book use in post-secondary institutions. In terms of awareness of e-books, he found wide gaps in the studies, from a low awareness of 31% in one U.K. university to a high of 75% at a Cincinnati college (p. 356). For usage, the review found an aggregate of roughly 50% of participants in the various studies believe they have used e-books. The largest area of consensus among the studies relates to how e-books are used. Based on the metadata, Staiger (2012) observes that when students consult e-books, they only “extract information for their scholarly use” (p. 357) and that “they do no immerse themselves in them for extended periods of time” (p. 357). He concludes that e-books may be engendering superficial scholarship by promoting “cursory and spotty practices” (p. 361), instead of thorough reading.
No Shelf Required. [Web log]. Retrieved from http://www.libraries.wright.edu/noshelfrequired/about/
A good website for following developments in academic e-book publishing and adoption is No Shelf Required (http://www.libraries.wright.edu/noshelfrequired/), a blog affiliated with the Wright State University Libraries. The site discusses “the issues, concepts, current and future practices of eBook publishing” (No Shelf Required, n.d.). Although aimed primarily at librarians and publishers, this online resource provides a wealth of information for scholars conducting research on e-book use in academia. The site includes sections on academic libraries, Google Books, surveys and statistics, university press, and articles of interest. Content on the site is moderated by Sue Polanka, head of reference and instruction at Wright State University Libraries.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Sunday, November 10, 2013
What channel/tool should you use for your public relations campaign?
Below are five criteria that can be used to determine what particular mode of external communication (media or channel choice) should be used for a public relations campaign.
1. Audience-specific and demographic factors: As Hackman and Johnson (2004) note, “successful campaigns utilize those media that are most accessible to [target] audiences” (p. 270). This often has to do with the demographics of the audience the campaign is seeking to reach. If the goal is to reach younger audiences, social media channels should be considered, given their high use of channels such as Facebook. For older audiences, traditional media (print newspapers, magazines and television) may be better options. Mainstream media outlets can even be analysed further, based on the audience. If the campaigns aims to reach religious or conservative Christians, television networks such as FOX. If the target is African American young adults, a station like Black Entertainment Television would be an ideal choice.
2. Channel reach: Some channels or tools can reach a large audience, while others reach a smaller, targeted group. This consideration can help determine which external media to use. A company may want to use brochures and posters at its locations to reach the relatively smaller group of customers who visit its locations. If the organization wants to communicate with larger audiences (e.g. potential/future customers or external stakeholders who are not customers), channels with a larger reach (e.g. television advertising, a news release or a news conference) may need to be employed.
3. Message format/type: Certain types of messages may call for particular communication channels. For example, if the goal is to convey detailed, technical information that the audience needs to retain/remember, text/print-based channels would be more advisable. Examples of this include financial reports (print would be better than a video report). If the message to be communicated is brief (and needs to be communicated to a mass audience), Twitter might be a good choice (Twitter wouldn’t work for communication the financial report, for example). Some messages are best communicated by video, to convey a personal and emotional connection with the audience. An example might be when a CEO needs to make an important apology and convey the emotion of remorse to the audience.
4. Feedback requirements: Does the message require prompt feedback or can feedback be delayed? The need for immediate feedback will dictate particular channels, such as, use of Facebook, a video conference, or a survey on the company’s website. Channels such as newspaper articles may also elicit feedback, but this will be delayed, because feedback is not typically built into this channel.
5. Resources: Finally, resources should be a consideration. There is no point in planning and attempting to launch a campaign that the organization does not have the financial, logistical and human resources to execute. Channels such as television advertising are expensive, so the needed budget needs to be in place. Social media campaigns, on the other hand, can be executed without heavy financial investments.
Which of these five factors would you consider the most important? Why?
1. Audience-specific and demographic factors: As Hackman and Johnson (2004) note, “successful campaigns utilize those media that are most accessible to [target] audiences” (p. 270). This often has to do with the demographics of the audience the campaign is seeking to reach. If the goal is to reach younger audiences, social media channels should be considered, given their high use of channels such as Facebook. For older audiences, traditional media (print newspapers, magazines and television) may be better options. Mainstream media outlets can even be analysed further, based on the audience. If the campaigns aims to reach religious or conservative Christians, television networks such as FOX. If the target is African American young adults, a station like Black Entertainment Television would be an ideal choice.
2. Channel reach: Some channels or tools can reach a large audience, while others reach a smaller, targeted group. This consideration can help determine which external media to use. A company may want to use brochures and posters at its locations to reach the relatively smaller group of customers who visit its locations. If the organization wants to communicate with larger audiences (e.g. potential/future customers or external stakeholders who are not customers), channels with a larger reach (e.g. television advertising, a news release or a news conference) may need to be employed.
3. Message format/type: Certain types of messages may call for particular communication channels. For example, if the goal is to convey detailed, technical information that the audience needs to retain/remember, text/print-based channels would be more advisable. Examples of this include financial reports (print would be better than a video report). If the message to be communicated is brief (and needs to be communicated to a mass audience), Twitter might be a good choice (Twitter wouldn’t work for communication the financial report, for example). Some messages are best communicated by video, to convey a personal and emotional connection with the audience. An example might be when a CEO needs to make an important apology and convey the emotion of remorse to the audience.
4. Feedback requirements: Does the message require prompt feedback or can feedback be delayed? The need for immediate feedback will dictate particular channels, such as, use of Facebook, a video conference, or a survey on the company’s website. Channels such as newspaper articles may also elicit feedback, but this will be delayed, because feedback is not typically built into this channel.
5. Resources: Finally, resources should be a consideration. There is no point in planning and attempting to launch a campaign that the organization does not have the financial, logistical and human resources to execute. Channels such as television advertising are expensive, so the needed budget needs to be in place. Social media campaigns, on the other hand, can be executed without heavy financial investments.
Which of these five factors would you consider the most important? Why?
What is the best leadership communication style?
As Hackman and Johnson (2004) note, leaders tend to be inclined towards one of three leadership styles, namely authoritarian, democratic or laissez-fair. They note that “each of these styles of communication has unique features that affect how leaders interact with followers (p. 38). While it’s easy to assume that one of these styles is the best (for example, the democratic approach), leadership contingency theory suggests that the choice of which style a leader should employ needs to be determined by situational considerations.
Below are some ideas that can help determine which leadership communication style to employ under varying circumstances. I have presented this in the form of questions the leader can ask, to help think through which leadership style may be appropriate or effective.
1. Does the process, task or goal involve public safety, issues of security or danger? If so, an authoritarian style is advisable, to help control and minimize risk. Examples include leader-follower relationships in the police and army.
2. Is the leader involved in providing training, instruction or coaching to followers? If so, a democratic style may not be the best approach because too much consultation over items such as curricula, how training should be conducted, and how progress should be assessed, will frustrate the learning process. The leader (in this case, a teacher or coach) would be best advised to adopt an authoritarian style (although a benevolent one).
3. Do the followers belong to a culture that has a high “power distance”? This is the perception that "an order of inequality exists in the world and everyone has their rightful place in that order; that differences in power are a basic fact of society and questions of the legitimacy of power are irrelevant" (Chemers, 1997, p. 117). Countries with high power distance cultures are primarily the nations outside of Europe and North America. In these countries, followers may expect their leaders to be authoritarian because that is the cultural norm for those in power. It may be advisable to avoid a democratic approach in these cultures as this will be seen as an abdication of authority.
4. Does the task require a high level of creativity/imagination or highly specialized skills? If so, the leader should consider a democratic or laissez-faire style because micro-managing this group will stifle innovation. Examples include leading scientists in a medical research lab.
5. Does the group being led lack maturity and experience? If so, a benevolent authoritarian style may be best. A good example of this is the relationship between a parent and a young child.
6. Is this a field that requires professional independence for success? If so, leaders need to adopt a laissez-faire model. Examples include the relationship between university administrators and tenure-track professors, or between the executive arm of the U.S. government and judges on the Supreme Court.
7. Are you leading low-motivated workers performing low-skill, routinized tasks? In that case, efficiency should be achieved through authoritarian leadership.
8. Are employees performing high compliance tasks in a highly regulated industry? Then the leader should consider an authoritarian style. An example is supervising work on an offshore oil rig.
9. Are you leading a group that has problems of indiscipline, poor work ethics, lack of professionalism and non-compliance with company policies and best practices? The leader faced with this situation will need to assert control and re-establish discipline through an authoritarian style.
10. Is your group or organization faced with a crisis or emergency that requires quick decision-making and the ability to act quickly? A scenario of this kind might call for an authoritarian leadership style until the situation has passed.
Do you agree with these criteria? What would you add?
References
Chemers, M. M. (1997). An integrative theory of leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com
Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C.E. (2004). Leadership: A communication perspective (4th ed). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Below are some ideas that can help determine which leadership communication style to employ under varying circumstances. I have presented this in the form of questions the leader can ask, to help think through which leadership style may be appropriate or effective.
1. Does the process, task or goal involve public safety, issues of security or danger? If so, an authoritarian style is advisable, to help control and minimize risk. Examples include leader-follower relationships in the police and army.
2. Is the leader involved in providing training, instruction or coaching to followers? If so, a democratic style may not be the best approach because too much consultation over items such as curricula, how training should be conducted, and how progress should be assessed, will frustrate the learning process. The leader (in this case, a teacher or coach) would be best advised to adopt an authoritarian style (although a benevolent one).
3. Do the followers belong to a culture that has a high “power distance”? This is the perception that "an order of inequality exists in the world and everyone has their rightful place in that order; that differences in power are a basic fact of society and questions of the legitimacy of power are irrelevant" (Chemers, 1997, p. 117). Countries with high power distance cultures are primarily the nations outside of Europe and North America. In these countries, followers may expect their leaders to be authoritarian because that is the cultural norm for those in power. It may be advisable to avoid a democratic approach in these cultures as this will be seen as an abdication of authority.
4. Does the task require a high level of creativity/imagination or highly specialized skills? If so, the leader should consider a democratic or laissez-faire style because micro-managing this group will stifle innovation. Examples include leading scientists in a medical research lab.
5. Does the group being led lack maturity and experience? If so, a benevolent authoritarian style may be best. A good example of this is the relationship between a parent and a young child.
6. Is this a field that requires professional independence for success? If so, leaders need to adopt a laissez-faire model. Examples include the relationship between university administrators and tenure-track professors, or between the executive arm of the U.S. government and judges on the Supreme Court.
7. Are you leading low-motivated workers performing low-skill, routinized tasks? In that case, efficiency should be achieved through authoritarian leadership.
8. Are employees performing high compliance tasks in a highly regulated industry? Then the leader should consider an authoritarian style. An example is supervising work on an offshore oil rig.
9. Are you leading a group that has problems of indiscipline, poor work ethics, lack of professionalism and non-compliance with company policies and best practices? The leader faced with this situation will need to assert control and re-establish discipline through an authoritarian style.
10. Is your group or organization faced with a crisis or emergency that requires quick decision-making and the ability to act quickly? A scenario of this kind might call for an authoritarian leadership style until the situation has passed.
Do you agree with these criteria? What would you add?
References
Chemers, M. M. (1997). An integrative theory of leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com
Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C.E. (2004). Leadership: A communication perspective (4th ed). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
13 communication theories in a nutshell
Let’s face it -- communication theories can be complicated and abstract concepts to grasp, let alone reproduce. That said, below is my attempt to capture the essence of 13 key communication theories as briefly as possible. The summaries below are derived from Griffin (2012), p. 54 – 229. See if you agree with these Cliffs Notes renditions.
Divine Agodzo
1. Symbolic interactionism
Simply put, symbolic interactionism posits that “perception is reality” or better put, “perception through interaction is reality.” The theory suggests that meaning is the interpretation we subjectively give to reality; it is not intrinsic. As we interact with others through language, we make and modify meaning, and through thinking or “minding” we provide our individual interpretation of this socially constructed meaning.
2. Coordinated management of meaning (CMM)
Like symbolic interactionism, CMM is rooted in social constructionism, the idea that communication does not describe our relationships and our reality, but in fact, creates them. This happens as much through the patterns, mood and manner of our communication (its “logical force”) as through their actual content. CMM’s reflexivity concept holds that the actions of people in communication have effects that bounce of each other, as they create the ecology of the world in which they must live.
3. Expectancy violations theory
Judee Burgoon’s expectancy violations theory contends that in some situations, breaching societal or personal expectations, is an effective communication strategy. The theory has three key concepts: “Expectancy” is what people predict will happen; “violation valence” is the degree to which the violation is perceived positively or negatively; and “communicator reward valence” is the ratio of positive to negative values attributed to the one committing the violation, and the degree to which they are seen as being able to reward or punish the person on the receiving end of the violation. The theory suggests that when a breach has a positive violation valence, it will yield superior results compared to compliance.
4. Constructivism
Constructivism proposes that the ability of individuals to communicate skillfully (or not) depends on the complexity (or otherwise) of the cognitive templates or “constructs” with which they view the world. These constructs are the contrasting features they use to classify people, and the more distinguishing they are (able to isolate subtle personality and behavior differences among people), the greater the individual’s cognitive complexity or “construct differentiation.” According to theorist Jesse Delia, individuals with higher construct differentiation are better able to adapt their communication to suit varying needs of the audience and differing situational requirements, producing what she describes as “sophisticated communication.”
5. Social penetration theory
Social penetration theory posits that relationship development is akin to penetrating increasingly resistant social layers (depicted through onion metaphor) to achieve greater depth and breadth of intimacy. According to the theory, outer layers of the “onion” (e.g. biographical data) are penetrated more easily/quickly than deeper layers (self-concept; deeply held fears/fantasies). This process occurs through self-disclosure; is guided by the “law of reciprocity” (self-disclosure by one causes the other communicant to also self-disclose); and is motivated by consideration of outcomes (perceived rewards of self-disclosure minus costs). A reverse process of “depenetration” can also occur when communicants gradually close up their lives to each other.
6.Uncertainty reduction theory
Theorist Charles Berger is of the opinion that when individuals meet for the first time (strangers), a driving goal in their communication is the reduction of uncertainty that inevitably exists about how to navigate the relationship. He notes that this is especially so if there is the expectation that future/ongoing interaction will occur; if there is something at stake in the relationship (an incentive value); or if the other party has unusual/inexplicable features (deviance). Berger developed eight axioms to explain and predict how uncertainty operates in interpersonal communication. Uncertainty can be reduced using a passive, active or interactive strategy.
7. Social information processing theory (SIP)
Social information theory argues that Computer Media Communication is able to provide a parallel, and in some cases richer interpersonal communication experience than face-to-face communication. Theorist Joseph Walther argued that CMC uses linguistic content to compensate for the lack of non-verbal cues. The theory concedes, however, that interpersonal relations are formed at a slower rate in CMC, but given time, will attain all the features of a face-to-face relationship, and even more (hyperpersonal perspective).
8. Relational dialectics
Relational dialectics proposes that contradictory forces are at play in interpersonal relationships. This is when two forces or tendencies are interdependent (the dialectical principle of unity), and yet mutually negate one another (the dialectical principle of negation). Theorists Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery identified relational dialectics at work in three key areas: integration vs. separation; stability vs. change; and expression vs. nonexpression.
9. Communication Privacy Management Theory (CPMT)
CPMT holds that, in conflict with the desire to disclose personal information as a means of building intimacy (social penetration theory), individuals have a competing desire for privacy. It is premised on the assumption that people have “ownership” of their private information; that they control the use of this information through personal privacy rules; and that when this information is shared with others, they become co-owners of the information. Theorist Sandra Petronio cautioned that co-owners of private information need to decide on mutually agreed privacy rules on disclosure.
10. The Interaction View
The Interaction View falls under the Cybernetic Tradition, which means it adopts a systems-view of communication processes. In other words, communication occurs within interconnected, interdependent systems in which one person’s behavior affects everyone in the system. According to the theory, systems, by definition, resist change, which can be accomplished through “reframing” by all parties. The theory proposes four axioms as key to understanding (and changing) communication within the system.
11. Social judgment theory
Social judgment theory posits that the opinions individuals have/form on issues are situated on (and shift across) three latitudes: a latitude of acceptance (ideas viewed as reasonable or worth considering); a latitude of rejection (range of ideas dismissed as unreasonable); and a latitude of non-commitment (range of ideas to which person is indifferent). The ability to shift an individual’s opinion across these latitudes depends heavily on their “ego-involvement,” which is the importance of an issue to them. In addition, the theory suggests that people with heavy ego-involvement tend to over-react negatively to messages they disagree with, seeing them as much more objectionable than presented (contrast error). On the other hand, they over-react positively to messages they agree with, seeing them as much more appealing than presented (assimilation error).
12. Elaboration likelihood theory
This theory posits that the chances of successfully persuading an individual on an issue depend on the cognitive route that individual is predisposed to take, in message assessment or “elaboration.” Theorists Richard Petty and John Cacioppo identified two such routes, the central route, used by those who exert higher mental effort to scrutinize facts and arguments in the message, and the peripheral route, employed by those who prefer to use a mental shortcut process that is guided by “irrelevant cues” (e.g. celebrity endorsements, presenter’s personality) as opposed to high message elaboration. The theorists hold that decisions made by the central route are most strongly held and last longer, while those made by the peripheral route, are more fickle.
13. Cognitive dissonance theory
Leon Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance Theory asserts that human beings have a strong aversive drive to reconcile “dissonance” or conflict between their beliefs/attitudes/opinions and their behavior/actions/reality. Festinger’s theory includes a most paradoxical hypothesis (minimal justification hypothesis), that asserts that the best way to change someone’s belief is to change their action through a minimal amount of rewards or punishment that would lead to “compliance.” Faced with dissonance between his/her “compliance” behavior and his/her beliefs (which cannot be explained by the minimal reward/punishment), the individual would then cognitively align his beliefs to his actions, to eliminate the dissonance.
References
Griffin, E. (2012). A first look at communication theory (8th edition). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Divine Agodzo
1. Symbolic interactionism
Simply put, symbolic interactionism posits that “perception is reality” or better put, “perception through interaction is reality.” The theory suggests that meaning is the interpretation we subjectively give to reality; it is not intrinsic. As we interact with others through language, we make and modify meaning, and through thinking or “minding” we provide our individual interpretation of this socially constructed meaning.
2. Coordinated management of meaning (CMM)
Like symbolic interactionism, CMM is rooted in social constructionism, the idea that communication does not describe our relationships and our reality, but in fact, creates them. This happens as much through the patterns, mood and manner of our communication (its “logical force”) as through their actual content. CMM’s reflexivity concept holds that the actions of people in communication have effects that bounce of each other, as they create the ecology of the world in which they must live.
3. Expectancy violations theory
Judee Burgoon’s expectancy violations theory contends that in some situations, breaching societal or personal expectations, is an effective communication strategy. The theory has three key concepts: “Expectancy” is what people predict will happen; “violation valence” is the degree to which the violation is perceived positively or negatively; and “communicator reward valence” is the ratio of positive to negative values attributed to the one committing the violation, and the degree to which they are seen as being able to reward or punish the person on the receiving end of the violation. The theory suggests that when a breach has a positive violation valence, it will yield superior results compared to compliance.
4. Constructivism
Constructivism proposes that the ability of individuals to communicate skillfully (or not) depends on the complexity (or otherwise) of the cognitive templates or “constructs” with which they view the world. These constructs are the contrasting features they use to classify people, and the more distinguishing they are (able to isolate subtle personality and behavior differences among people), the greater the individual’s cognitive complexity or “construct differentiation.” According to theorist Jesse Delia, individuals with higher construct differentiation are better able to adapt their communication to suit varying needs of the audience and differing situational requirements, producing what she describes as “sophisticated communication.”
5. Social penetration theory
Social penetration theory posits that relationship development is akin to penetrating increasingly resistant social layers (depicted through onion metaphor) to achieve greater depth and breadth of intimacy. According to the theory, outer layers of the “onion” (e.g. biographical data) are penetrated more easily/quickly than deeper layers (self-concept; deeply held fears/fantasies). This process occurs through self-disclosure; is guided by the “law of reciprocity” (self-disclosure by one causes the other communicant to also self-disclose); and is motivated by consideration of outcomes (perceived rewards of self-disclosure minus costs). A reverse process of “depenetration” can also occur when communicants gradually close up their lives to each other.
6.Uncertainty reduction theory
Theorist Charles Berger is of the opinion that when individuals meet for the first time (strangers), a driving goal in their communication is the reduction of uncertainty that inevitably exists about how to navigate the relationship. He notes that this is especially so if there is the expectation that future/ongoing interaction will occur; if there is something at stake in the relationship (an incentive value); or if the other party has unusual/inexplicable features (deviance). Berger developed eight axioms to explain and predict how uncertainty operates in interpersonal communication. Uncertainty can be reduced using a passive, active or interactive strategy.
7. Social information processing theory (SIP)
Social information theory argues that Computer Media Communication is able to provide a parallel, and in some cases richer interpersonal communication experience than face-to-face communication. Theorist Joseph Walther argued that CMC uses linguistic content to compensate for the lack of non-verbal cues. The theory concedes, however, that interpersonal relations are formed at a slower rate in CMC, but given time, will attain all the features of a face-to-face relationship, and even more (hyperpersonal perspective).
8. Relational dialectics
Relational dialectics proposes that contradictory forces are at play in interpersonal relationships. This is when two forces or tendencies are interdependent (the dialectical principle of unity), and yet mutually negate one another (the dialectical principle of negation). Theorists Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery identified relational dialectics at work in three key areas: integration vs. separation; stability vs. change; and expression vs. nonexpression.
9. Communication Privacy Management Theory (CPMT)
CPMT holds that, in conflict with the desire to disclose personal information as a means of building intimacy (social penetration theory), individuals have a competing desire for privacy. It is premised on the assumption that people have “ownership” of their private information; that they control the use of this information through personal privacy rules; and that when this information is shared with others, they become co-owners of the information. Theorist Sandra Petronio cautioned that co-owners of private information need to decide on mutually agreed privacy rules on disclosure.
10. The Interaction View
The Interaction View falls under the Cybernetic Tradition, which means it adopts a systems-view of communication processes. In other words, communication occurs within interconnected, interdependent systems in which one person’s behavior affects everyone in the system. According to the theory, systems, by definition, resist change, which can be accomplished through “reframing” by all parties. The theory proposes four axioms as key to understanding (and changing) communication within the system.
11. Social judgment theory
Social judgment theory posits that the opinions individuals have/form on issues are situated on (and shift across) three latitudes: a latitude of acceptance (ideas viewed as reasonable or worth considering); a latitude of rejection (range of ideas dismissed as unreasonable); and a latitude of non-commitment (range of ideas to which person is indifferent). The ability to shift an individual’s opinion across these latitudes depends heavily on their “ego-involvement,” which is the importance of an issue to them. In addition, the theory suggests that people with heavy ego-involvement tend to over-react negatively to messages they disagree with, seeing them as much more objectionable than presented (contrast error). On the other hand, they over-react positively to messages they agree with, seeing them as much more appealing than presented (assimilation error).
12. Elaboration likelihood theory
This theory posits that the chances of successfully persuading an individual on an issue depend on the cognitive route that individual is predisposed to take, in message assessment or “elaboration.” Theorists Richard Petty and John Cacioppo identified two such routes, the central route, used by those who exert higher mental effort to scrutinize facts and arguments in the message, and the peripheral route, employed by those who prefer to use a mental shortcut process that is guided by “irrelevant cues” (e.g. celebrity endorsements, presenter’s personality) as opposed to high message elaboration. The theorists hold that decisions made by the central route are most strongly held and last longer, while those made by the peripheral route, are more fickle.
13. Cognitive dissonance theory
Leon Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance Theory asserts that human beings have a strong aversive drive to reconcile “dissonance” or conflict between their beliefs/attitudes/opinions and their behavior/actions/reality. Festinger’s theory includes a most paradoxical hypothesis (minimal justification hypothesis), that asserts that the best way to change someone’s belief is to change their action through a minimal amount of rewards or punishment that would lead to “compliance.” Faced with dissonance between his/her “compliance” behavior and his/her beliefs (which cannot be explained by the minimal reward/punishment), the individual would then cognitively align his beliefs to his actions, to eliminate the dissonance.
References
Griffin, E. (2012). A first look at communication theory (8th edition). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Friday, November 1, 2013
MLK: The Quintessential Charismatic Leader
This year, the world marked the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous I Have A Dream speech. I am posting below a paper I wrote on MLK for my communication leadership course. As always, I appreciate comments.
DA
To cite this article (APA): Agodzo, D. (2013, November 1). Martin Luther King: The quintessential charismatic leader [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://learnandteachcomm.blogspot.ca/2013/11/mlk-quintessential-charismatic-leader.html
This paper provides a leadership communication analysis of the life of the prominent civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., as the world marks the 50th anniversary of his famous “I have a Dream” speech. To provide insights into King’s leadership, it will review his legacy through five lenses – the roles that vision, historical factors, power, charisma, and credibility, played in his life and message. This article suggests that (a) the rallying force of a compelling vision was central to King’s success as a leader; (b) the confluence of historical and situational factors provided a fertile environment for King’s emergence as a leader; (c) King’s source of power was primarily rooted in the legitimating force of Scripture, (d) King’s leadership was seen by his followers as stemming from a charismatic “anointing” from God; and (e) King’s credibility with respect to his personal commitment and sacrifice to the vision strengthened his leadership, but credibility gaps in other areas pose challenges to those taking a retrospective look at his legacy. The paper concludes with some lessons that contemporary leaders can learn from King’s life.
Martin Luther King Jr. (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968) was an African-American Baptist minister responsible for leading a non-violent civil rights movement that transformed race relations in the U.S. in the 50s and 60s. King studied theology at Crozer Theological Seminary in 1951 and subsequently earned a doctorate in theology from Boston University in 1955. Following the footsteps of his father, King entered ministry, becoming pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1954 (“King, Martin Luther, Jr.,” 2013). King’s rise to prominence began when he joined Rosa Parks and other African-Americans in a boycott of segregated bus lines in Montgomery, Alabama, eventually taking a leadership role in the protests that led to the desegregation of the bus system in 1956.
Following this civil rights coup, King went on to lead the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, providing him with a platform from which to preach his message of nonviolent reform of systemic and institutional racism. For this, he endured great sacrifices, including several arrests in the 1950s and 60s (“King, Martin Luther, Jr.,” 2013). In August 1963, King spearheaded the March on Washington, which was attended by more than 200,000 people (“King, Martin Luther, Jr.,” 2013). This historic event was the setting for King’s famous “I have a Dream” speech, a powerful articulation of his leadership vision and the most notable demonstration of his charismatic oratory. It is acknowledged that King’s leadership through this tumultuous time in American history played an instrumental role in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the same year in which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize), as well as the 1965 Voting Rights Act. King faced increasing opposition to his leadership from militant civil rights activists in the mid-60s, but it was an assassin’s bullet that eventually ended his tenure on history’s stage. King was shot and killed on April 4, 1968, in Memphis, Tennessee.
One of the defining qualities of a leader is a compelling vision to serve as “the fire that ignites the passion of followers” (Hybels, 2002, p. 31) and this rallying vision was central to King’s leadership communication success. Silvers (1994) notes that “Martin Luther King espoused a vision in his 'I Have a Dream' speech in which he described a world of freedom and brotherhood for all” (para. 9). In his oration, King looks forward to a day when “the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave-owners will be able to sit down together on the table of brotherhood” (BBC News website, 2003, para. 14). This was not King’s first expression of his civil rights vision but his March on Washington address was the ultimate declaration of the visionary force that King tapped to energize his followers. The potency and universal human appeal of King’s “dream” (in contrast to the nightmare of racial injustice) is seen in how this vision “has inspired countless millions of oppressed peoples around the world” (Paris, 2004, p. 10). In that regard, the leadership communication success of King had much to do with the essence of his message and its ability to arrest the minds and hearts of followers.
Martin Luther King’s accomplishments cannot be divorced from the circumstances that spawned his vision and work. Gardner (1990) rightly states that that when examining leaders, we “violate reality by lifting them out of their historical contexts” (p. 5). Kershaw (2001) notes that King was “a product of his time” and cites various social conditions including “the constant dehumanizing of African American life, the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision, and, his black Baptist ministerial background” (para. 18). While this assertion indicates a situational view of King’s leadership success, it does not preclude a traits or functional perspective. King definitely had immense natural charisma and adopted needed task-related and group building/maintenance behaviors (Hackman & Johnson, 2004, pp 80 – 81) critical to the success of all leaders. Thus, a situational view in no way diminishes the personal traits and behaviors that accounted for Martin Luther King’s success, but simply paints King as a man who responded like no other to the challenges of his time. Gardner (1990) aptly expresses this balanced view of history and hero, observing that “historical forces create the circumstances in which leaders emerge, but the characteristics of the particular leader in turn have their impact on history” (p. 6). And speaking of Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and Marcus Garvey, Kershaw (2001) states that “no matter how charismatic these three leaders were, they would not have been successful if the social conditions were not ripe for group movement” (para. 16).
As Hackman and Johnson (2004) note, “leadership cannot exist without power” (p. 126) and for King, the source of this power was the legitimating sanction of scripture. One of the principal elements in King’s life and vision was “fundamental Christianity,” which was “the deepest and most pervasive theme in his life” (Gardner & Laskin, 1996, p. 209). Because of his scholarship in theology, King was well versed in the Judeo-Christian texts and tradition and viewed Christ and Moses as models. The parallel with Moses is particularly instructive. As evident from his last “Mountaintop” speech in which he compares himself to the Old Testament figure (cf. Deuteronomy 34:1), King saw himself as a type of Moses, called and empowered by God to tell America, “Let my people go” (Exodus 9:1). If “legitimate power resides in the position rather than the person” (Hackman & Johnson, 2004, p. 132), then King’s power was derived from his divinely appointed position as the Moses of his people, and not from his person.
The source of King’s power, then, is seen as divine. It is not surprising, therefore, that he often appealed to (and quoted) the authority of biblical truths, to legitimize his cause. In his “I have a Dream” speech, he references Amos 5:24 when he says “we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream” (BBC News, 2003, para. 10) and again borrows from Isaiah 40:4-5, yearning for a time when “the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together” (para. 20). Even when King cites the Emancipation Proclamation, the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in his speech to substantiate his demands for change, he views the power of these documents as stemming from a “sacred obligation” (para. 5) that has its origin in biblical values on human dignity and equality.
Charisma is associated with a “dynamic personality often defined as magnetic and inspirational” (Gibson, Hannon, & Blackwell, 1998, p. 11), features that clearly characterized King as a leader. Derived from the Greek word for “gift,” the early Church used the concept of charismata to denote the Holy Spirit’s empowerment of Christians that enabled them to perform miraculous feats. Thus, “this notion of charisma being a gift from God implies that it is an innate character trait rather than one that can be developed” (p. 11). In this biblical conceptualization of charisma, it becomes easy for ardent followers to understand how leaders like King are able to “describe goals by painting word pictures [and] have an exceptional ability to win the devotion and support of followers” (p. 11). This enablement, according to this view, is the result of God’s special anointing.
King’s ability to marshal thousands of supporters and inspire them to embrace his vision is at least in part the result of the perception among followers that his unique endowments and abilities were of supernatural origin. This fits with the attribution approach to charismatic leadership in which “charisma is defined in terms of the perceptions of followers” (Hackman & Johnson, 2004, p 115). Such was the mystique surrounding King that according to Baldwin (1991), “one young woman, after shaking Dr. King's hand, declared that she would never wash her hands again" (p. 2). But regardless of whether or not one views his traits as a gift from God, many who encountered King were enthralled by the “eloquent speaker who could move easily in various social circles” (Gardner & Laskin, 1996, p. 204). And there is no gainsaying the fact that King capitalized on his charisma to help him achieve the goals of the civil rights movement, effectively combining style with the substance of his thought. It may indeed be no exaggeration to suggest that King would not have realized the level of success he achieved as a leader without his charismatic rhetorical brilliance.
When it comes to the question of credibility, the assessment of King’s legacy comes up against its greatest challenge due to two competing narratives regarding his integrity as a leader. As Hackman and Johnson (2004) note, credibility is critical to successful leadership, yet “perceptions of credibility vary over time” (p. 155). This is indeed true of the evaluation of King’s credibility. Most historians view the record of his personal stewardship of the civil rights movement as stellar. As far as the vision to create a racially just America through non-violence was concerned, King walked the talk, literally sacrificing his life for what he believed. His followers saw the consistency of his character and followed him with the same spirit of dedication.
On the other hand, recent revelations of King’s flaws have raised questions about his judgment and
moral standing. Two main issues have emerged, one related to academic plagiarism (Lischer, 1997, p. 62) and the other, to allegations of sexual promiscuity (p. 169). These events have cast a shadow on the King legacy. At best, this presents the picture of a leader who was subject to human foibles. For the Christian, seeing sin in the leader we are inclined to place on a lofty pedestal serves as a reminder that no one is perfect and that all are equally in need of the saving grace that God has freely provided – and continues to provide – to those who believe in Jesus (Romans 3: 23-24; Isaiah 64:6). In that sense, King reminds us of another great leader in Scripture who was far from perfect – King David. For King’s harshest critics, however, this is evidence of moral hypocrisy. What is certain is that regardless of the truth or falsehood of these matters, reverence for King remains strong among most Americans, as shown by the high profile celebrations that recently marked the 50th anniversary of his March on Washington speech (Tampa Bay Times website, 2013). There is perhaps the view that although there are credibility questions about some aspects of King’s character, his record in the civil rights domain remains unblemished and impregnable.
The leadership of Martin Luther King Jr. offers at least three lessons for our contemporary times. The first relates to what could be viewed as King’s definition of leadership as consensus building. King is reported to have said that "a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus” (Benjamin, 2012). King dedicated his life to this task of bringing people together, even in the face of seeming unsurmountable differences. Today’s leaders need the same ability to build bridges across opinion lines and cultures in order to succeed. Those who are unable to bring people and ideas together are unlikely to succeed in leadership. King’s leadership also highlights the need for vision on the part of the leader. He was able to drive change because his passionate vision stirred followers to action. While contemporary leaders may not need to lead a mass movement, they can learn from King’s ability to paint a powerful and demanding picture of the end to which all efforts must be put. The third and perhaps most important lesson is that leaders need not be perfect to lead. Even the best leaders have failings and flaws, some significant. Leaders must of course strive to live up to their values and be quick to correct mistakes, but they must also learn to forgive themselves when they fail and not let the lack of perfection extinguish their vision. Those who do their very best to respond to the opportunities of leadership, striving to make a difference in the lives of others, will be remembered not for their failures, but for their ability to rise above failure.
Ultimately, history’s verdict on the leadership and legacy of Martin Luther King will have to take into account the full man. This paper has portrayed King as a leader who moved the nation to address the wrongs of racial justice by presenting a compelling vision for change. King was a product of the times in which he lived, but his leadership stemmed from his unique ability and willingness to respond to the pressing call of history. King viewed Scripture as the legitimating source of his power. In addition, his abilities and endowments as a leader are seen, in the biblical sense, as “charismata” – a grace gift handed down from God. King, however, is far from perfect, as borne out by his academic plagiarism and allegations surrounding adultery. The life of Martin Luther King Jr. teaches today’s leaders that bridge-building is a key part of their mission, that a compelling vision is necessary to drive change, and that while leaders must constantly strive to live up to their values, they need not be perfect to accomplish great things.
Baldwin, L. V. (1991). There is a balm in Gilead: The cultural roots of Martin Luther King, Jr. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com.
BBC News website (2003). Text of Martin Luther King’s I have a Dream speech. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3170387.stm.
Benjamin, R. (2012, January 12). Column: MLK knew that change began with individuals. USA
Today. Retrieved from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-01-12/king-mlk-leader-change/52521152/1.
Gardner, H., & Laskin, E. (1996). Leading minds: An anatomy of leadership. New York:
BasicBooks. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com
Gardner, J. W. (1990). On leadership. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Gibson, J. W., Hannon, J. C., & Blackwell, C. W. (1998). Charismatic leadership: The hidden
controversy. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(4), 11. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com.
Hackman, M. Z. & Johnson, C. E. (2004). Leadership: A communication perspective (4th ed.).
Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Hybels, B. (2002). Courageous leadership. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Kershaw, T. (2001). African American national leadership: A model for complementarity. The
Western Journal of Black Studies, 25(4), 211+. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com
King, Martin Luther, Jr. (2013). In The Columbia Encyclopedia (6th ed.). The Columbia
University Press. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com.
Lischer, R. (1997). The preacher king: Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Word that moved
America. New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com
Paris, P. J. (2004). King's vision of America: An ethical assessment. In J. Echols (Ed.), I have a
dream: Martin Luther King Jr. and the future of multicultural America. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com.
Silvers, D. I. (1994). Vision - Not just for CEOs. Management Quarterly, 35(4), 10+. Retrieved
from http://www.questia.com.
Tampa Bay Times website (2013). Obama leads commemoration of March on Washington’s
50th anniversary. Retrieved from http://www.tampabay.com/incoming/obama-leads-commemoration-of-march-on-washingtons-50th-anniversary/2138902.
DA
To cite this article (APA): Agodzo, D. (2013, November 1). Martin Luther King: The quintessential charismatic leader [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://learnandteachcomm.blogspot.ca/2013/11/mlk-quintessential-charismatic-leader.html
Martin Luther King: The Quintessential Charismatic Leader
This paper provides a leadership communication analysis of the life of the prominent civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., as the world marks the 50th anniversary of his famous “I have a Dream” speech. To provide insights into King’s leadership, it will review his legacy through five lenses – the roles that vision, historical factors, power, charisma, and credibility, played in his life and message. This article suggests that (a) the rallying force of a compelling vision was central to King’s success as a leader; (b) the confluence of historical and situational factors provided a fertile environment for King’s emergence as a leader; (c) King’s source of power was primarily rooted in the legitimating force of Scripture, (d) King’s leadership was seen by his followers as stemming from a charismatic “anointing” from God; and (e) King’s credibility with respect to his personal commitment and sacrifice to the vision strengthened his leadership, but credibility gaps in other areas pose challenges to those taking a retrospective look at his legacy. The paper concludes with some lessons that contemporary leaders can learn from King’s life.
Historical Highlights of Martin Luther King’s Life
Martin Luther King Jr. (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968) was an African-American Baptist minister responsible for leading a non-violent civil rights movement that transformed race relations in the U.S. in the 50s and 60s. King studied theology at Crozer Theological Seminary in 1951 and subsequently earned a doctorate in theology from Boston University in 1955. Following the footsteps of his father, King entered ministry, becoming pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1954 (“King, Martin Luther, Jr.,” 2013). King’s rise to prominence began when he joined Rosa Parks and other African-Americans in a boycott of segregated bus lines in Montgomery, Alabama, eventually taking a leadership role in the protests that led to the desegregation of the bus system in 1956.
Following this civil rights coup, King went on to lead the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, providing him with a platform from which to preach his message of nonviolent reform of systemic and institutional racism. For this, he endured great sacrifices, including several arrests in the 1950s and 60s (“King, Martin Luther, Jr.,” 2013). In August 1963, King spearheaded the March on Washington, which was attended by more than 200,000 people (“King, Martin Luther, Jr.,” 2013). This historic event was the setting for King’s famous “I have a Dream” speech, a powerful articulation of his leadership vision and the most notable demonstration of his charismatic oratory. It is acknowledged that King’s leadership through this tumultuous time in American history played an instrumental role in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the same year in which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize), as well as the 1965 Voting Rights Act. King faced increasing opposition to his leadership from militant civil rights activists in the mid-60s, but it was an assassin’s bullet that eventually ended his tenure on history’s stage. King was shot and killed on April 4, 1968, in Memphis, Tennessee.
I Have a Dream: The Power of King’s Vision
One of the defining qualities of a leader is a compelling vision to serve as “the fire that ignites the passion of followers” (Hybels, 2002, p. 31) and this rallying vision was central to King’s leadership communication success. Silvers (1994) notes that “Martin Luther King espoused a vision in his 'I Have a Dream' speech in which he described a world of freedom and brotherhood for all” (para. 9). In his oration, King looks forward to a day when “the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave-owners will be able to sit down together on the table of brotherhood” (BBC News website, 2003, para. 14). This was not King’s first expression of his civil rights vision but his March on Washington address was the ultimate declaration of the visionary force that King tapped to energize his followers. The potency and universal human appeal of King’s “dream” (in contrast to the nightmare of racial injustice) is seen in how this vision “has inspired countless millions of oppressed peoples around the world” (Paris, 2004, p. 10). In that regard, the leadership communication success of King had much to do with the essence of his message and its ability to arrest the minds and hearts of followers.
The Right Man at the Right Time
Martin Luther King’s accomplishments cannot be divorced from the circumstances that spawned his vision and work. Gardner (1990) rightly states that that when examining leaders, we “violate reality by lifting them out of their historical contexts” (p. 5). Kershaw (2001) notes that King was “a product of his time” and cites various social conditions including “the constant dehumanizing of African American life, the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision, and, his black Baptist ministerial background” (para. 18). While this assertion indicates a situational view of King’s leadership success, it does not preclude a traits or functional perspective. King definitely had immense natural charisma and adopted needed task-related and group building/maintenance behaviors (Hackman & Johnson, 2004, pp 80 – 81) critical to the success of all leaders. Thus, a situational view in no way diminishes the personal traits and behaviors that accounted for Martin Luther King’s success, but simply paints King as a man who responded like no other to the challenges of his time. Gardner (1990) aptly expresses this balanced view of history and hero, observing that “historical forces create the circumstances in which leaders emerge, but the characteristics of the particular leader in turn have their impact on history” (p. 6). And speaking of Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and Marcus Garvey, Kershaw (2001) states that “no matter how charismatic these three leaders were, they would not have been successful if the social conditions were not ripe for group movement” (para. 16).
Authority from Above: King’s Use of Legitimate Power
As Hackman and Johnson (2004) note, “leadership cannot exist without power” (p. 126) and for King, the source of this power was the legitimating sanction of scripture. One of the principal elements in King’s life and vision was “fundamental Christianity,” which was “the deepest and most pervasive theme in his life” (Gardner & Laskin, 1996, p. 209). Because of his scholarship in theology, King was well versed in the Judeo-Christian texts and tradition and viewed Christ and Moses as models. The parallel with Moses is particularly instructive. As evident from his last “Mountaintop” speech in which he compares himself to the Old Testament figure (cf. Deuteronomy 34:1), King saw himself as a type of Moses, called and empowered by God to tell America, “Let my people go” (Exodus 9:1). If “legitimate power resides in the position rather than the person” (Hackman & Johnson, 2004, p. 132), then King’s power was derived from his divinely appointed position as the Moses of his people, and not from his person.
The source of King’s power, then, is seen as divine. It is not surprising, therefore, that he often appealed to (and quoted) the authority of biblical truths, to legitimize his cause. In his “I have a Dream” speech, he references Amos 5:24 when he says “we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream” (BBC News, 2003, para. 10) and again borrows from Isaiah 40:4-5, yearning for a time when “the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together” (para. 20). Even when King cites the Emancipation Proclamation, the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in his speech to substantiate his demands for change, he views the power of these documents as stemming from a “sacred obligation” (para. 5) that has its origin in biblical values on human dignity and equality.
King’s Charismatic Anointing
Charisma is associated with a “dynamic personality often defined as magnetic and inspirational” (Gibson, Hannon, & Blackwell, 1998, p. 11), features that clearly characterized King as a leader. Derived from the Greek word for “gift,” the early Church used the concept of charismata to denote the Holy Spirit’s empowerment of Christians that enabled them to perform miraculous feats. Thus, “this notion of charisma being a gift from God implies that it is an innate character trait rather than one that can be developed” (p. 11). In this biblical conceptualization of charisma, it becomes easy for ardent followers to understand how leaders like King are able to “describe goals by painting word pictures [and] have an exceptional ability to win the devotion and support of followers” (p. 11). This enablement, according to this view, is the result of God’s special anointing.
King’s ability to marshal thousands of supporters and inspire them to embrace his vision is at least in part the result of the perception among followers that his unique endowments and abilities were of supernatural origin. This fits with the attribution approach to charismatic leadership in which “charisma is defined in terms of the perceptions of followers” (Hackman & Johnson, 2004, p 115). Such was the mystique surrounding King that according to Baldwin (1991), “one young woman, after shaking Dr. King's hand, declared that she would never wash her hands again" (p. 2). But regardless of whether or not one views his traits as a gift from God, many who encountered King were enthralled by the “eloquent speaker who could move easily in various social circles” (Gardner & Laskin, 1996, p. 204). And there is no gainsaying the fact that King capitalized on his charisma to help him achieve the goals of the civil rights movement, effectively combining style with the substance of his thought. It may indeed be no exaggeration to suggest that King would not have realized the level of success he achieved as a leader without his charismatic rhetorical brilliance.
Questions of Credibility
When it comes to the question of credibility, the assessment of King’s legacy comes up against its greatest challenge due to two competing narratives regarding his integrity as a leader. As Hackman and Johnson (2004) note, credibility is critical to successful leadership, yet “perceptions of credibility vary over time” (p. 155). This is indeed true of the evaluation of King’s credibility. Most historians view the record of his personal stewardship of the civil rights movement as stellar. As far as the vision to create a racially just America through non-violence was concerned, King walked the talk, literally sacrificing his life for what he believed. His followers saw the consistency of his character and followed him with the same spirit of dedication.
On the other hand, recent revelations of King’s flaws have raised questions about his judgment and
moral standing. Two main issues have emerged, one related to academic plagiarism (Lischer, 1997, p. 62) and the other, to allegations of sexual promiscuity (p. 169). These events have cast a shadow on the King legacy. At best, this presents the picture of a leader who was subject to human foibles. For the Christian, seeing sin in the leader we are inclined to place on a lofty pedestal serves as a reminder that no one is perfect and that all are equally in need of the saving grace that God has freely provided – and continues to provide – to those who believe in Jesus (Romans 3: 23-24; Isaiah 64:6). In that sense, King reminds us of another great leader in Scripture who was far from perfect – King David. For King’s harshest critics, however, this is evidence of moral hypocrisy. What is certain is that regardless of the truth or falsehood of these matters, reverence for King remains strong among most Americans, as shown by the high profile celebrations that recently marked the 50th anniversary of his March on Washington speech (Tampa Bay Times website, 2013). There is perhaps the view that although there are credibility questions about some aspects of King’s character, his record in the civil rights domain remains unblemished and impregnable.
Lessons for Leaders Today
The leadership of Martin Luther King Jr. offers at least three lessons for our contemporary times. The first relates to what could be viewed as King’s definition of leadership as consensus building. King is reported to have said that "a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus” (Benjamin, 2012). King dedicated his life to this task of bringing people together, even in the face of seeming unsurmountable differences. Today’s leaders need the same ability to build bridges across opinion lines and cultures in order to succeed. Those who are unable to bring people and ideas together are unlikely to succeed in leadership. King’s leadership also highlights the need for vision on the part of the leader. He was able to drive change because his passionate vision stirred followers to action. While contemporary leaders may not need to lead a mass movement, they can learn from King’s ability to paint a powerful and demanding picture of the end to which all efforts must be put. The third and perhaps most important lesson is that leaders need not be perfect to lead. Even the best leaders have failings and flaws, some significant. Leaders must of course strive to live up to their values and be quick to correct mistakes, but they must also learn to forgive themselves when they fail and not let the lack of perfection extinguish their vision. Those who do their very best to respond to the opportunities of leadership, striving to make a difference in the lives of others, will be remembered not for their failures, but for their ability to rise above failure.
Conclusion
Ultimately, history’s verdict on the leadership and legacy of Martin Luther King will have to take into account the full man. This paper has portrayed King as a leader who moved the nation to address the wrongs of racial justice by presenting a compelling vision for change. King was a product of the times in which he lived, but his leadership stemmed from his unique ability and willingness to respond to the pressing call of history. King viewed Scripture as the legitimating source of his power. In addition, his abilities and endowments as a leader are seen, in the biblical sense, as “charismata” – a grace gift handed down from God. King, however, is far from perfect, as borne out by his academic plagiarism and allegations surrounding adultery. The life of Martin Luther King Jr. teaches today’s leaders that bridge-building is a key part of their mission, that a compelling vision is necessary to drive change, and that while leaders must constantly strive to live up to their values, they need not be perfect to accomplish great things.
References
Baldwin, L. V. (1991). There is a balm in Gilead: The cultural roots of Martin Luther King, Jr. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com.
BBC News website (2003). Text of Martin Luther King’s I have a Dream speech. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3170387.stm.
Benjamin, R. (2012, January 12). Column: MLK knew that change began with individuals. USA
Today. Retrieved from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-01-12/king-mlk-leader-change/52521152/1.
Gardner, H., & Laskin, E. (1996). Leading minds: An anatomy of leadership. New York:
BasicBooks. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com
Gardner, J. W. (1990). On leadership. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Gibson, J. W., Hannon, J. C., & Blackwell, C. W. (1998). Charismatic leadership: The hidden
controversy. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(4), 11. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com.
Hackman, M. Z. & Johnson, C. E. (2004). Leadership: A communication perspective (4th ed.).
Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Hybels, B. (2002). Courageous leadership. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Kershaw, T. (2001). African American national leadership: A model for complementarity. The
Western Journal of Black Studies, 25(4), 211+. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com
King, Martin Luther, Jr. (2013). In The Columbia Encyclopedia (6th ed.). The Columbia
University Press. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com.
Lischer, R. (1997). The preacher king: Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Word that moved
America. New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com
Paris, P. J. (2004). King's vision of America: An ethical assessment. In J. Echols (Ed.), I have a
dream: Martin Luther King Jr. and the future of multicultural America. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com.
Silvers, D. I. (1994). Vision - Not just for CEOs. Management Quarterly, 35(4), 10+. Retrieved
from http://www.questia.com.
Tampa Bay Times website (2013). Obama leads commemoration of March on Washington’s
50th anniversary. Retrieved from http://www.tampabay.com/incoming/obama-leads-commemoration-of-march-on-washingtons-50th-anniversary/2138902.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)