Download chapter i - Sacramento - California State University

A TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP ANALYSIS OF RHETORIAL LEADERSHIP: THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRESIDENTIAL RHETORIC AND FOLLOWER EVALUATION
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Psychology
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
Psychology
(Industrial and Organizational Psychology)
by
Kolbi Couts
SPRING
2012
© 2012
Kolbi Couts
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
A TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP ANALYSIS OF RHETORIAL LEADERSHIP: THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRESIDENTIAL RHETORIC AND FOLLOWER EVALUATION
A Thesis
by
Kolbi Couts
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Oriel Strickland, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Second Reader
Caio Miguel, Ph.D., BCBA-D
__________________________________, Third Reader
Larry Meyers, Ph.D.
____________________________
Date
iii
Student: Kolbi Couts
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual,
and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis.
___________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Jianjian Qin, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
iv
_______________________
Date
Abstract
of
A TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP ANALYSIS OF RHETORIAL LEADERSHIP: THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRESIDENTIAL RHETORIC AND FOLLOWER EVALUATION
by
Kolbi Couts
Leadership researchers often rely on traditional survey techniques, potentially limiting new insights. This
study aimed to explore new grounds by integrating quantitative methods, a thematic analysis of narrative,
and archival data into the research. The effects of the rhetorical themes of Optimism, Activity, and
Commonality on follower evaluation were examined. Additionally, political party was explored. Datasets
detailing speech-watchers overall reaction to State of the Union addresses were acquired from The Roper
Center for Public Opinion Research’s website (N= 3552) and compared to DICTION frequencies for
Optimism, Activity, and Commonality found in the text of corresponding State of the Union addresses.
Followers rated leaders’ overall messages more positively when they frequently utilized Optimism.
Commonality and Activity were also correlated with follower evaluation, however there was relatively
little shared variance. Additionally, a main effect of party match on follower evaluation was identified.
Results are discussed in terms of existing theory and practice.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Oriel Strickland, Ph.D.
_______________________
Date
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my thesis committee, Dr. Strickland, Dr. Miguel, and Dr. Meyers, for their
support and feedback throughout this process. I would also like to thank Amanda, Angel, Elena, and Jorge
(fellow graduate students) for meeting with me monthly and unintentionally motivating me to work on my
thesis.
And to Jeff- thanks for your love and support… and for making me lunch when I was too wrapped
up in my thesis to take a break and make it for myself. To my parents, sister, and extended family- thanks
for never doubting my ability to achieve my goals.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments .........................................................................................................................................vi
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. viii
List of Figures ...............................................................................................................................................ix
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................1
History of Rhetoric............................................................................................................................1
Purpose and Problem .......................................................................................................................3
Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................................................3
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .............................................................................................................5
DICTION ..........................................................................................................................................5
Rhetorical Leadership .......................................................................................................................7
Transformational Leadership Theory ............................................................................................. 10
Transformational Leadership and Charisma ................................................................................... 13
Leadership and Affect ..................................................................................................................... 14
Participant Party Affiliation ............................................................................................................ 15
3. METHOD ................................................................................................................................................. 18
Participants ...................................................................................................................................... 18
Measures ......................................................................................................................................... 20
4. FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................................ 23
Results ............................................................................................................................................ 23
5. DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................................................... 29
Study Purpose and Overview of Findings ...................................................................................... 29
Summary of Results ....................................................................................................................... 29
Strengths and Weaknesses .............................................................................................................. 31
Future Directions ............................................................................................................................ 33
Broader Significance of Findings ................................................................................................... 34
References .................................................................................................................................................... 36
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
1.
Table 1 Demographic Frequencies ..................................................................................................... 20
2.
Table 2 Correlations and Descriptives ................................................................................................ 24
3.
Table 3 Hierarchical Multiple Linear Regression Analysis ................................................................ 27
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
Page
1.
Figure 1 Interaction between Party Match and Party Affiliation.. ....................................................... 25
2.
Figure 2 Interaction between President and Follower Party Affiliation ............................................. 28
ix
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
History of Rhetoric
Communication is a process by which valuable information is passed from one person to another
or to a group of people. To get a message across to a recipient, a string of verbal cues (such as words) are
used to prompt the recipient to react a certain way. Though not every recipient reacts similarly to each
word, certain words tend to be perceived alike by groups of individuals (Golden, Berquist, Coleman &
Sproule, 2003). A collective understanding or meaning of words is acquired through literary context, which
provides the framework necessary for words to interact with one another and form a specific message
(Golden et al., 2003).
Communication, however, is more than just a way to pass on a message. Historically,
communication has been used to persuade individuals to adopt the speaker’s message as part of their own
personal belief system (McCloskey, 2011). This concept is typically referred to as “the art of rhetoric.”
McCloskey (2011) argues that, “An innovative economy is “rhetorical” because, if our economic lives are
not frozen by tradition, we must persuade each other what is to be done.”
The study of rhetoric dates back over 2,000 years to the work of Aristotle, who viewed rhetoric as
the use of shared knowledge to engage and persuade others with words when the truth was not obvious
(Edwards, 2006). As McCloskey (2011) points out, rhetoric is often misconstrued as a negative thing, when
it was originally intended to be positive. To emphasize his point, McCloskey stated, “The word “persuade”
has the same Indo-European root as “sweet.”’ Rhetoric has, however been misused by countless numbers of
people as a means to an end, so it’s not surprising that rhetoric is often associated with negative thoughts
and feelings. Needless to say, rhetoric is part of everyday speech that is used by parents, teachers, students,
politicians, and leaders alike.
2
Aristotle’s ideology of rhetoric was a major starting point for modern rhetorical communication
theory, which suggests that both the speaker and audience are active in the shaping of the communication
outcome (Edwards, 2006). Unlike Aristotle’s rhetorical communication theory, which suggested audiences’
judgments of and choices based on communication were important aspects of rhetoric, modern
communication theory views them as necessary aspects of rhetoric (Edwards, 2006). Some researchers
have proposed that rhetorical communication in essence has no obvious outcome; the audiences’ response
to the content of the communicated message is what determines the outcome of the message (Edwards,
2006).
This study focuses on presidential rhetoric, meaning the President is the rhetorical speaker.
Presidents use rhetoric along with priming to encourage followers, individuals who are recipients of the
rhetoric, to focus mainly on the issues included in their rhetorical speeches (Druckman & Holmes, 2004).
Priming involves focusing on specific issues or events and making these issues or events more salient to
followers, which in turn increases the likelihood that followers will remember those issues and events and
use them to form opinions on overall performance (Druckman & Holmes, 2004). The effectiveness of
priming is linked with the speaker’s credibility (Miller & Krosnick, 2000; Druckman, 2001). Speakers who
are deemed more credible tend to prime others more effectively (Miller & Krosnick, 2000; Druckman,
2001).
Druckman and Holmes (2004) explain that priming is different from persuasion because priming
doesn’t involve trying to change followers’ opinions on specific issues; instead, priming involves putting
focus on only those issues that one would want overall evaluations to be based on. Druckman and Holmes
(2004) note that in addition to priming specific issues, “The president may also influence his approval by
persuading voters that they should support his policies, or by convincing them that he is performing well on
specific issues”.
It’s no surprise that priming is used alongside persuasive techniques. Edwards (2003) noted that
the effect of persuasion can be quite limited when used by itself. Druckman and Holmes (2004) found that
3
when Presidents used priming with rhetoric, they were able to influence their approval ratings. This study
will look specifically at presidential State of the Union addresses because they are rhetorical and also prime
followers to base their evaluations of the speeches on the specific issues that were touched on. The hope is
that the State of the Union addresses’ focus on specific issues will bring followers to base their evaluations
on the specific speech at hand as opposed to other factors (i.e. party affiliation).
Purpose and Problem
This study derived hypotheses from the transformational leadership literature to explore the
relationship between the rhetoric of various presidents and followers’ overall evaluations of presidential
speeches. Many researchers have noticed the overuse of traditional survey methods in leadership research
and have suggested that incorporating untraditional methods into research designs may add perspective to
previous findings (Bligh, Kohles & Meindl, 2004; Conger & Toegel, 2002; Insch, More & Murphy, 1997).
This study was one of very few leadership studies to use a computer program to perform a thematic
analysis of narrative using archival data, focusing specifically on the linguistic elements that surround the
relationship between leaders and followers. The goal of this research was to complement previous findings
regarding the dynamic relationship between leaders and followers.
Additionally, leaders are often faced with the responsibility of positively presenting a message or
vision to followers. Knowing how followers react to specific rhetorical features of messages may aid in the
development or refinement of leader training programs. This study looked specifically at the relationship
between the verbal behavior of leaders and followers’ evaluations (defined in this study as the degree to
which Presidential State of the Union address speech watchers’ report experiencing an overall positive or
negative reaction to the presidents’ message depicted in the speech). The results of this study may provide
valuable information that can be used to develop or improve such training programs.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical basis for this examination focused on transformational leadership theory. Relevant
predictions were drawn from this theoretical perspective. This study utilized an archival database called
4
The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, which housed pre-established survey data regarding
Presidential State of the Union Addresses. A computer program called DICTION 6.0 was used to analyze
the content of Presidential State of the Union addresses in terms of the rhetorical themes of Optimism,
Activity, and Commonality.
The themes of Optimism, Activity, and Commonality were examined in this study because they
are pre-established measures that are based heavily on linguistic theory (Bligh et al., 2004; Pri, 2000a; Hart,
2000b; Hart & Carroll, 2011), are reliable (Bligh et al., 2004), and have been used by previous researchers
in the leadership arena (Bligh et al., 2004). Additionally, these particular themes were chosen for this study
because they overlap with the transformational leadership literature, specifically literature focused on
charisma. Optimism, Activity, Commonality, and their connection to the transformational leadership
literature will be further discussed in the following sections.
5
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
DICTION
DICTION is a dictionary-based computer program that analyzes the content of language by
identifying certain word groupings (also known as verbal tone) within the text (Hart, 2000a; Hart &
Carroll, 2011). DICTION was developed by communication researcher and professor, Roderick Hart
(DigitText, 2010; Hart & Carroll, 2011). DICTION was used in this study to analyze the rhetoric of
multiple Presidential State of the Union addresses.
DICTION measures five pre-established dictionary-based rhetorical themes, with the capacity to
measure self-created dictionaries as well (Hart & Carroll, 2011). This study focused on the pre-established
rhetorical themes of Optimism (“Language endorsing some person, group, concept or event, or highlighting
their positive entailments”), Activity (“Language featuring movement, change, the implementation of ideas
and the avoidance of inertia”), and Commonality (“Language highlighting the agreed-upon values of a
group and rejecting idiosyncratic modes of engagement”), each of which represented an independent
variable in this study (Hart, 2000b).
DICTION analyzes the content of text using 31 pre-established, non-overlapping, theoreticallygrounded dictionaries (Hart & Carroll, 2011). These dictionaries are composed of more than 10,000 words
total (Bligh, et al., 2004; Hart, 2000a; Hart, 2000b; Hart & Carroll, 2011). DICTION provides researchers
with access to the program’s normative samples for various types of messages (public speeches, poetry,
television scripts, etc.), thus allowing for direct comparisons between current samples and normative
samples (Hart, 2000b; Hart & Carroll, 2011).
DICTION is currently being used by the Campaign Mapping Project (CMP), a research project
focused on outlining the last 50 years of politics (Hart, 2000a). The CMP is a joint effort between
DICTION’s creator, Roderick Hart, and Kathleen Hall Jamieson (Hart, 2000a). The project is sponsored by
6
the Ford and Carnegie Foundations and has analyzed over 20,000 pieces of political text (i.e. campaign
speeches, debates, political ads, etc.) using DICTION (Hart, 2000a).
One of the CMP’s major contributions to the political arena involves outlining why some
campaigns succeed and others fail. The CMP identified a correlation between campaigns that fail and: (1)
giving the people or followers inaccurate predictions about what the leader will do in office (such was the
case in Jimmy Carter’s 1976 speech that focused on personal morals and was later overshadowed by
inflation, unemployment, and energy shortages) and (2) not having emotionally committed campaign
followers (such was the case in the 1992 election when Bill Clinton allegedly didn’t understand the issues
at hand before trying to develop a consensus) (Hart, 2000a). The CMP (Hart, 2000a) also noticed a
correlation between successful campaigns and providing followers with clear and sharp choices (i.e. Jimmy
Carter and Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign and Lyndon Johnson and Barry Goldwater’s 1964 campaign).
The advantages of using computer software to analyze the content of language are overwhelming.
In his book, Hart (2000a) says, “If properly coached, computers can track associations across semantic
space, note situational changes (and changes within those changes), distinguish the characteristic word
choices of one person from those of another. Computers can also detect stabilities in language behavior,
things that rarely change (p. 35).” Some obvious advantages of using computerized-content-analysis as
opposed to traditional human-content-analysis include reduced financial and time investment.
Other noted advantages of using DICTION include: (1) all constructs are operationalized (Hart,
2000a), (2) the program is dependable because it only finds what it searches for (Hart, 2000a), (3) it’s
capable of searching through large groups of text (Hart, 2000a), (4) it removes error caused by human
reaction to language (Bligh et al., 2004; Hart, 2000a), and (5) the computerized and systematic nature of
DICTION allows its analysis of speech to be associated with exceptional reliability and no experimental
bias (Bligh et al., 2004).
Though there are many advantages to using computerized software to analyze the content of
language, there are also disadvantages that researchers should be aware of: (1) insight is not guaranteed no
7
matter how many texts are analyzed (Bligh et al., 2004; Hart, 2000a), (2) large databases may inflate type I
error (i.e. significant results may be identified simply because a large number of texts were analyzed)
(Bligh et al., 2004; Hart, 2000a), and (3) words are no longer part of their original context (Bligh et al.,
2004). Some of these disadvantages can be minimized by supplementing the quantitative results of the
content analysis with qualitative research and by using a stricter p-value when determining the significance
of results.
This study utilized DICTION for its strengths while concurrently attempting to minimize its
weaknesses. The following section will introduce the leadership literature that was used to generate
hypotheses for this study.
Rhetorical Leadership
Rhetoric and leadership are two bodies of research that overlap. Leaders use words to transmit
messages and the messages that leaders transmit, including the way in which they are transmitted, can
influence followers’ thoughts and actions toward a leader. Rhetorical leadership is “the… ability to think
clearly, reason effectively, invent arguments adapted to situations and specific audiences, speak eloquently,
and move listeners to action” (Price & Wren, 2007, p. 8). In addition to these qualities, rhetorical leaders
can reconstruct a frame of reference and control how people perceive their messages (Zarefsky, 2000).
Rhetorical leaders are leaders who think like rhetoricians. They view the world as a complex
configuration of different forces, which together form a rhetorical situation (Price & Wren, 2007). Among
these forces are people, traditions, laws, religions, beliefs, attitudes, values, and relationships (Price &
Wren, 2007). Presidents are unique leaders because they must deal with at least 10 institutional constraints
(the U.S. Constitution, congress, federal courts, media, public opinion, party philosophy and priorities,
national economy, historical era, relationships with other nation-states, and executive branch bureaucracy)
and three personal constraints (the President’s governmental philosophy, personal characteristics, and
personal relationships). These constraints make it vital for Presidents to utilize rhetorical strategies when
8
publicly addressing the nation because their ability to effectively lead is dependent on reaching diverse
audiences while concurrently dealing with these constraints.
Historically, rhetoric has been used by Presidents to extend their power and resources past that
given to them by the constitution (Ellis, 1998; Dorsey, 2002). For example, it is now expected that
Presidents formally address the nation annually, despite the fact that the Constitution did not originally
require them to do so (Ellis, 1998; Dorsey, 2002). Dorsey (2002) explains that the custom of delivering an
augural address began with George Washington (who got the idea from a British custom) and was later
refined and formalized after Thomas Jefferson’s first inaugural address. Washington’s idea of giving an
inaugural address quickly caught on and is now considered an American norm.
Washington and his successor, Adams, delivered verbal speeches to the legislature, however,
between the time Jefferson was President to the time Woodrow Wilson was President, the addresses were
merely written addresses given to Congress (Ellis, 1998). Initially, these addresses gave Presidents the
opportunity to influence the legislature’s work via rhetoric. Now that Presidents are expected to directly
addresses the people of the nation as opposed to just Congress, they also have the ability to influence the
behavior (attitudes, thoughts, feelings, and actions) of the people.
Rhetorical leadership applies the concept of rhetorical communication theory to leadership
contexts. When this theory is specifically applied to Presidential contexts, it implies that “Presidents lead
by giving voice to a view of the world that offers audiences different and better ways of seeing their own
situation (Zarefsky, 2000).” Ultimately, rhetorical leadership boils down to two steps: (1) interpreting
problems that have no clear solution in a persuasive way, while pointing out potential solutions that draw
on shared beliefs and values between the leader and followers and (2) using knowledge about cultural
constraints to adapt definitions or interpretations of situations to fit the needs of the audience (Price &
Wren, 2007; Zarefsky, 2000).
Examples of rhetorical leadership involving Presidents are sprinkled throughout bodies of
literature related to leadership, rhetoric, and politics. Some research focuses on specific instances of
9
rhetorical leadership (i.e. State of the Union addresses), while other research focuses on speeches given
after significant events (i.e. the 9/11 crisis). For example, in his analysis of Lincoln’s 1862 Annual Message
(now referred to as a State of the Union address), Zarefsky (2000) noted that Lincoln’s rhetorical leadership
allowed him to: prepare followers to consider a radical solution to a problem by subtly hinting at his
intentions, explain a situation in such a way that followers could understand, and teach a new version of
reality.
The majority of rhetorical leadership literature in the leadership arena, however, involves
analyzing leaders’ rhetoric in times of crisis. Bligh et al. (2004), for example, looked at differences in the
content of President Bush’s pre and post-crisis speeches using DICTION. Bligh et al. (2004) found that the
occurrence of five of the six pre-constructed DICTION rhetorical themes significantly changed after the
9/11 crisis. However, the rhetorical theme of Optimism did not change because it incorporated both
positive and negative contributors to the construct that ended up cancelling each other out (mostly due to
the content of the post-crisis speeches) (Bligh et al., 2004). According to Griffin-Padgett and Allison
(2010), additional researchers (Arpan, 2002; Benoit, 1997; Benson, 1988; Brinson & Benoit, 1996;
Coombs, 1995, 1999; Fishman, 1999; Hale, Dulek, & Hale, 2005; Stephens, Malone, & Bailey, 2005;
Williams & Olaniran, 2002) have also examined rhetoric during crises within the last two decades.
Based on the existing rhetorical leadership literature dealing with crises, a series of theories
regarding rhetorical strategies used in crisis situations have been formed. Griffin-Padgett and Allison
(2010) identified five such theories: “Ware and Linkugel’s (1973) theory of apologia, Benoit’s theory of
image restoration (1995), Koesten and Rowland’s (2004) rhetoric of atonement, Seeger and Ulmer’s (2002)
framework on the discourse of renewal, and Baker’s (2001) work on racial crises [see Griffin-Padgett and
Allison (2010) for additional details] (p. 277).”
This study will attempt to expand the overlap between rhetoric and leadership literature by
analyzing speeches that are not specifically crises related. The following section will outline
10
transformational leadership theory, which will form the basis for the hypotheses to be examined in this
study.
Transformational Leadership Theory
Rhetorical leadership is closely related to the concept of transformational leadership, which began
with the work of James Burns (1978). James Burns (1978) was a leadership pioneer; he said that leadership
was “… leaders inducing followers to act for certain goals that represent the values and the motivations- the
wants and needs, the aspirations and expectations- of both leaders and followers (p. 19).”
In Leadership (1978), Burns mentioned that leaders and followers’ interactions could encompass
one of two forms: (1) transactional and (2) transformational. Transactional leadership occurs when the
leader treats his/her interaction with followers as a transaction, reinforcing followers’ performance with
their help and other forms of rewards that meet the followers’ needs (Gillespie & Mann, 2004). Followers
are also punished in order to reach goals. Transformational leadership, on the other hand, refers to when
followers’ motivation to perform stems from leaders making them aware of why goals are important (Bass,
1985). It should be noted that the definitions of transactional and transformational leadership both refer to
providing followers with some sort of reinforcement in order to achieve an end goal. Unlike transactional
leadership, however, transformational leadership relies on awareness of the importance of goals to
reinforce followers enough to motivate them to perform.
Bass (1985) expanded Burns’ (1978) theory, asserting that there were indeed two dimensions of
leadership. Since then, transactional leadership, which was once the main focus of leadership research, has
been overshadowed by interest in transformational leadership. Bass (1985) noted that transformational
leaders were charismatic, able to present a persuasive vision, capable of getting followers to look at old
problems in a new way, and willing to serve as a mentor to followers. Transformational leadership research
primarily focuses on identifying leader behaviors that help followers become more attentive to the
importance of tasks in relation to their outcomes, higher-order needs, and the benefits of rising above self-
11
interests to help the organization or group (Bass, 1985; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990;
Yukl, 1989a, 1989b).
Research suggests that when followers view a leader as being transformational, they react more
positively (Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Whittington, Goodwin, & Murray, 2004;
Yammarino & Bass, 1990). Bass (1985) noticed that multiple field studies found a positive correlation
between leader behavior and follower satisfaction, work performance, and effort. These findings support
the notion that the leader-follower relationship is both dynamic and interactive.
Over the years, Bass (as well as other researchers) continued to develop and refine the concept of
transformational leadership. Avolio and Bass (2004) noted that transformational leaders inspire followers
to: look at new perspectives, become aware of a shared mission or values, maximize their full potential, and
focus on shared interests as opposed to individual interests. Whittington, Coker, Goodwin, Ickes, and
Murray (2009) found that the degree to which a transformational leader and their followers agree on the
leader’s performance does not strongly predict the strength of the followers’ outcomes (i.e. trust in the
leader, organizational citizenship behaviors, etc.). This can be explained by transformational leadership
theory; transformational leaders’ effectiveness is related to how well they can inspire and motivate their
followers and not necessarily how they perceive themselves (Whittington et al., 2009).
Northouse (2010) presented a definition of transformational leadership, which was based off of
Bass’s (1985) classic transformational leadership theory. Northhouse (2010) defined transformational
leadership as, “The process whereby a person engages with others and creates a connection that raises the
level of motivation and morality in both the leader and the follower (p. 172).” Both old and new research
identify transformational leaders as individuals who are perceived to focus on charismatic and affective
aspects of leadership as well as be intellectually stimulating and inspirational (Avolio & Gibbons, 1988;
Northouse, 2010).
According to Avolio and Bass (2004), transformational leadership encompasses four main factors:
(1) idealized influence, (2) inspirational motivation, (3) intellectual stimulation, and (4) individualized
12
consideration. Idealized influence describes leaders who are charismatic, ethical, respectful, and a solid role
model for followers (Lang, 2010). Inspirational motivation describes leaders who create a shared vision,
have high expectations, and encourage followers to achieve the unexpected (Lang, 2010). Leaders who
exhibit intellectual stimulation are generally seen by followers as: intrinsically motivating, encouraging,
and supportive of their ideas (Lang, 2010). Leaders who are high in individualized consideration are
typically perceived as leaders who are supportive, pay attention to followers’ needs, and manage by
delegating tasks (Lang, 2010).
This study relates mainly to the idealized influence and inspirational motivation components
because they highlight a leader’s ability to act in such a way that is both admirable and persuasive. Avolio
and Bass (2004) suggest that idealized influence occurs when followers feel they are able to trust and rely
on a leader and thus possess the desire to emulate him or her. Inspirational motivation is said to occur when
followers are motivated by a leader’s energy to look at new perspectives (Avolio & Bass, 2004).
Transformational leadership research has linked followers’ trust in a leader to shared beliefs and
values. Leaders and followers that have high trust relationships tend to agree more with each other’s values
than leaders and followers who have low trust relationships (Gillespie & Mann, 2004; Lewicki, McAllister,
& Bies, 1998). Jones and George (1998) assert that shared values are positively linked to unconditional
trust. Gillespie and Mann (2004) found a strong positive correlation between followers’ trust in the leader
and ratings of leader effectiveness, satisfaction with the leader, extra effort engaged in by followers on
behalf of the leader, and the strength of the leader-follower bond.
Because transformational leaders are leaders who motivate followers to become aware of shared
beliefs and values, and shared beliefs and values are positively linked to satisfaction with a leader, it is
hypothesized that leaders who emphasize common values will be more likely to connect with followers and
thus be more likely to receive a more positive evaluation from followers.
H1: The rhetorical theme of Commonality will be positively related to follower evaluation.
13
Transformational Leadership and Charisma
Charisma is a key feature of transformational leadership. House, Spangler, and Woycke’s (1991)
definition of charisma suggests that charisma is, “… the ability of a leader to exercise diffuse and intense
influence over the beliefs, values, behavior, and performance of others through his or her own behavior,
beliefs, and personal example (p. 366).” Charisma has been positively linked to follower motivation and
attitudes in organizations as well as ratings of supervisor performance (Bass, 1985; Kirkpatric & Locke,
1996). Research has also shown that political leaders who are charismatic can influence followers in such a
way that they are willing to disregard the leaders’ poor performance (Merolla, Ramos & Zechmeister,
2007). Multiple researches have also identified a link between charisma and narcissism, which suggests
that the majority of charismatic leaders also display characteristics of narcissism (Miner, 2005).
A study conducted by Emrich, Brower, Feldman, and Garland (1991), which analyzed the content
of presidential speeches, found that image-based rhetoric was positively related to attributions of charisma.
These researchers concluded that a leader’s success in presenting a vision may be influenced by the
leader’s ability to paint a “verbal picture” of potential outcomes that can be obtained with their help.
Additional research by Rosenberg and Hirschberg (2009) has assessed the links between charisma and
rhetoric. These authors found that the number of first-person pronouns within the text of speech was
positively correlated with perceptions of charisma. These studies support the notion that analyzing the text
of leaders’ speech can both supplement and extend research in the field of leadership.
This study focused on Gardner and Avolio’s (1998) dramaturgical model of the charismatic
relationship, which implies that the charismatic relationship is a process that is dynamic, reciprocal, and
interactive. In this model both the leader and follower are seen as agents that influence the charismatic
relationship. Charisma is considered to be the product of the relationship between a charismatic leader and
the leader’s followers who are open to the idea of charisma and are in a charismatic environment (Klein &
House, 1995).
14
The dramaturgical model supports the framing theory, which focuses on how certain situations or
views can be staged to present information in such a way that encourages or motivates others to adopt a
specific opinion (Cogner, 1991; Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996; Goffman, 1974). Because charisma can be seen as
a dynamic interaction between a leader and his or her followers and messages can be framed in such a way
that encourages followers to support them, leaders who frame and transmit messages that flow and are full
of energy should be more likely to connect with followers.
H2: The rhetorical theme of Activity will be positively related to follower evaluation.
Leadership and Affect
Affect, or the experience of emotion, has been traditionally studied in relation to social
interactions and attachments. During the late 1970’s through the mid-1980’s, social psychologists began to
notice that emotional reactions to a person’s nonverbal behavior (as well as their verbal behavior) shape
others’ attitudes toward that person (Iyengar & McGuire, 1995). Research conducted by these social
psychologists suggests that infants respond to their mother’s facial cues, which can influence the infants’
personality over time, help them learn, and increase their social behavior (Iyengar & McGuire, 1995).
Affect also has been applied and integrated into leadership literature.
Forgas (1995) identified a strong relationship between affect and individuals’ judgments and
coined the term affect infusion, which is “… the process whereby affectively loaded information exerts an
influence on and becomes incorporated into the judgmental process, entering into the judge’s deliberations
and eventually coloring the judgmental outcome.” Forgas’ (1995) theory of affect infusion is supported by
other leadership research. For example, research by Rubin, Munz, and Bommer (2005) found that leaders
who had high positive affectivity were rated as being more transformational by followers than their low
affectivity counterparts.
Affect has also been linked to followers’ ratings of leadership ability (Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig,
2008). This finding is similar to field studies in the leadership arena, which have found a positive
correlation between the degree to which subordinates like a leader and their ratings of that leader (Kaiser et
15
al., 2008). Some researchers have even found that it is possible to be emotionally affected by leaders’ nonverbal behavior, independent of the leaders’ verbal behavior. For instance, when a follower watches a
leader talk on television, the follower elicits both physiological and conscious emotional responses- these
responses can be elicited without actually hearing the leader speak (Kuklinski, 2001).
Affect in the context of this research refers to followers’ emotion toward a leader, particularly a
President. Since affect is so closely related to approval, it seems appropriate for this study to look at
follower evaluation in terms of the degree to which followers approve of the Presidents’ overall State of the
Union address.
Based on literature linking affect to judgments and Forgas’ (1995) definition of affect infusion,
messages coming from Presidents that are affectively loaded may influence followers’ judgments about the
messages. Therefore, messages that project positive affect will positively influence followers’ judgments of
the message. So if a leader is able to project a feeling of optimism when delivering a verbal message,
followers will be more likely to react favorably to the leader’s message.
H3: The rhetorical theme of Optimism will be positively related to follower evaluation.
Participant Party Affiliation
Drawing from the concepts of rhetorical and transformational leadership, suggestions have been
made regarding how leaders can make their messages or visions more powerful. Among these suggestions
are the following guidelines, which were established by Conger (1991): (1) use values and beliefs to
positively frame messages, (2) describe goals through stories and illustrations, drawing on values and
beliefs, (3) touch on the goal of the message, why it is necessary, who the opponents are, and (4) discuss
why the mission will lead to success. Despite leaders’ efforts to make their messages more powerful,
Hogg’s (2001) Social Identity Theory of leadership suggests that a leader already fits a group prototype
(derived from common values and ideas) and can be viewed as a member of that group as opposed to being
viewed as strictly a leader.
16
Social Identity Theory is classically defined as, “… that part of an individual’s self concept which
derives from his knowledge of his membership of a group (or groups) together with the value and
emotional significance attached to the membership (Tajfel, 1978, p. 63).” Social Identity Theory suggests
that individuals exaggerate perceived differences between the social group they feel they belong to (the ingroup) and other groups (out-groups), resulting in a favoritism for other members of the in-group (Greene,
2004). When applied to this study, Social Identity Theory suggests that individuals who identify with a
specific political party affiliation will also focus on similarities between themselves and the political party
they feel they belong to, thus creating an ingroup-outgroup (us-them) mentality.
An ingroup-outgroup mentality can make it difficult to approach situations with an open mind
because openness comes at the risk of being rejected by other in-group members (Binning, Sherman,
Cohen, and Heitland, 2010; Cohen, Sherman, Bastardi, McGoey, Hsu, & Ross, 2007; Marques, Yzerbyt, &
Leyens, 1988). An experiment conducted by Binning, et al. (2010) identified two things that could weaken
partisanship and allow in-group members to be more open to the ideas of other groups: (1) removing the
pressure to be a good group member and align with other group members’ beliefs and values and (2)
having followers privately affirm their beliefs and values (self-integrity). Outside of experimental
conditions, however, the pressure to act within the beliefs and values of other in-group members is
unyielding, making it more risky to approach political situations with an open-mind, and less risky to
simply conform to in-group ideas.
Green (2004) found that political perceptions are influenced by partisan social identity and that as
partisan social identity increases, individuals tend to be more likely to engage in behaviors that benefit the
party they affiliate with. Political research has also suggested that individuals’ political party preferences
are influenced by the state of the economy and by presidential performance, which in turn affects their
position on issues, evaluations of leaders, and voting choices (Abramowitz & Saunders, 2006).
Research by Evans and Pickup (2010) looked at the relationship between economic perceptions
and political preferences, including presidential approval, and found that political preferences drive current
17
economic perceptions. These researchers noticed that individuals’ current presidential approval ratings
positively correlated to past presidential approval ratings. When these researchers statistically controlled for
past presidential approval, current economic assessments no longer affected current presidential approval,
suggesting that approval may be related less to economic perceptions and more to other factors like
political preferences.
In relation to this study, a president already fits either a Republican or Democrat prototype and
may be viewed as a member of a specific political party, as opposed to generally a leader. Since political
parties have an already established core set of shared beliefs and values, it is hypothesized that party
affiliation will influence followers’ evaluations of leaders’ messages. Specifically, when a leader transmits
a message that is inconsistent with the beliefs and values of followers (represented by the followers’
political party), the followers may be less likely (than if the transmitted beliefs and values were congruent
with their own) to approve of the leader’s message. Therefore it is hypothesized that:
H4: There will be a main effect of party affiliation match on follower evaluation.
18
Chapter 3
METHOD
Participants
This was an archival-based study, so there was no interaction with participants. Preestablished data-sets detailing followers’ evaluation of Presidential State of the Union addresses were
located on The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research website. All data sets that met the following
guidelines were extracted for use in this study: (1) the data focused on a specific State of the Union address,
(2) the sample population consisted of adults, 18 years or older, who reported that they watched all or part
of the Presidential State of the Union address in question, (3) participants were part of a national sample (4)
the data set included a question about the followers’ overall evaluation of the speech in the form of a
summative response scale, and (5) a Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) file was available
for the data set.
A total of eight data sets met the above criteria. These data sets were collected between
1998 to 2011. Data sets dating back further than the Clinton administration were not included because they
did not meet the specified criteria- they did not include a question about the followers’ overall evaluation of
the speech in question. Two of the data sets corresponded to State of the Union Addresses given by
President Obama, five were based on Bush’s State of the Union Addresses, and the remaining data set
corresponded to a State of the Union address given by Clinton.
A total of 4,242 participants were obtained from the data sets, but only 3,552 were
included due to unforeseen issues. The 2011 data set reported data for all respondents, regardless of
whether or not they watched the speech in question. When respondents reported that they had not at least
watched part of the speech, the interviewer skipped the question asking respondents to evaluate the speech
(the dependent variable in this study). For this reason, 692 participants from the 2011 data set were not
included in the analysis.
19
Other unforeseen issues regarding participant demographic variables were encountered
while compiling data for analysis. One participant’s age was miscoded as -1, the 2007 data set did not
include information on participants’ gender, and the 2006 and 2004 data sets did not record participants’
ethnicity. These issues should be kept in mind while looking at the following demographics.
Frequencies of participant demographic variables indicated the sample consisted of
46.5% male [N= 1653] and 43% female [N= 1529] participants (see Table 1). Gender information was not
available for 10.4% of participants [N= 370]. Participants’ age ranged from 18 to 99 or older [M= 55].
Participants identified with the following ethnicities: White [57.5%], Black [4.2%], other [2.8%], Hispanic
[1.2%], and Asian [0.5%]. The remaining participants either refused to report their ethnicity or were not
asked to report it. Participants identified themselves with the following political parties: Republican
[35.7%], Independent [31.8], Democrat [30.2%], and other [0.5%] (see Table 1). The remaining
participants either refused to state their party affiliation or were not sure which party affiliation they
identified with.
20
Table 1
Demographic Frequencies
Variable
N
%
1. Party Match
Yes
1382
38.9
No
2168
61.1
Republican
1269
35.7
Independent
1129
31.8
Democrat
1071
30.2
Don’t Know
27
0.8
Other
17
0.5
Male
1653
46.5
Female
1529
43.0
2. Party Affiliation
3. Gender
Note. N = 3,552.
Measures
DICTION 6.0. A computer software program called DICTION was used to
analyze the rhetorical content of various presidential State of the Union addresses. DICTION was
originally created specifically for the purposes of analyzing the tone of political verbal messages and has
been successfully used by Bligh et al. (2004) to study Presidential leadership.
Optimism, Activity and Commonality were measured using three of the five pre-established,
dictionary-based rhetorical themes measured by DICTION. Each of the rhetorical themes was constructed
21
from the following combination of lower-order dictionaries: Commonality: “[Centrality + Cooperation +
Rapport] -[Diversity + Exclusion + Liberation],” Activity: “[Aggression + Accomplishment +
Communication + Motion] – [Cognitive Terms + Passivity + Embellishment],” and Optimism: “[Praise +
Satisfaction + Inspiration] – [Blame + Hardship + Denial] (Hart, 2000b).” Words like cooperated, reliable,
and compliments represent Commonality. Activity, by contrast, is composed of words like controlling,
developed, and dashes. Examples of Optimism include the words: reliable, thrilled, and commitment.
Convergent validity has been established by Bligh et al. (2004), with interrater reliability
coefficients for dictionaries utilized by DICTION ranging from .67 (Ambivalence) to .92 (Faith). All six
dictionaries used by Bligh et al. (2004) had a significant chi-square statistic at the .05 level or better. The
ratings obtained by human coders and by DICTION were compared using Pearson correlation coefficients.
Human and DICTION ratings for Collectives, Faith, Patriotism, Ambivalence, and Aggression were
significantly positively correlated (p < .10).
One item of interest, follower evaluation to the President in question’s overall speech, was
extracted from the data files along with participants’ demographic information. The item regarding
follower evaluation stated, “What was your overall reaction to President Obama’s speech tonight—very
positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative, or very negative?” Responses included: 1= Very negative,
2= Somewhat negative, 3= Both/Mixed, 4= Somewhat positive, 5= Very positive, 9= Don’t know/Refused.
The coding scheme utilized for follower demographics and overall evaluation of the State of the Union
addresses was assessed for consistency of coding between surveys (i.e. 1= male for Obama 2011 and 1=
male for Bush 2007 data sets). If differences between coding schemes were found, the coding schemes
were made consistent using SPSS.
The Presidential State of the Union addresses that correspond to the selected data files were then
located online and transformed into a PDF file. Each of the State of the Union address text files were ran
through the dictionary-based content analysis program called DICTION and analyzed for the rhetorical
themes of Optimism, Activity, and Commonality. The resulting rhetorical theme frequencies were then
22
entered into SPSS. Follower evaluation of the State of the Union addresses was compared to the
frequencies of the three rhetorical themes and party match. Other participant demographic variables were
not compared to follower evaluation due to missing participant demographic information (see participant
section for details).
23
Chapter 4
FINDINGS
Results
Pearson correlations were used to assess the first three hypotheses, which linked follower
evaluation to the rhetorical themes of Optimism, Activity, and Commonality. Table 2 displays the means
and standard deviations for these variables as well as their Pearson correlation coefficients. Reliabilities can
be found along the diagonal of the correlation matrix. As predicted in hypothesis one, there was a positive
correlation between the rhetorical theme of Commonality and follower evaluation [r = .10, n = 3,552, p <
.01]. This result indicated that as the use of rhetoric depicting Commonality increased within Presidents’
State of the Union addresses, followers tended to rate the speeches more positively.
Contradicting hypothesis two, which predicted a positive correlation between Activity and
follower evaluation, results indicated there was a negative correlation between these variables [r = -.15, n =
3,552, p < .01]. This result suggests that as the use of rhetoric depicting Activity increased within
President’s State of the Union addresses, followers tended to rate the speeches more negatively. As can be
seen in Table 2, the standard deviation from the mean is much lower for Activity than it is for Optimism
and Commonality. As predicted, hypothesis three indicated there was a positive correlation between
Optimism and follower evaluation [r = .32, n = 3,552, p < .01]. Results suggest that as the use of rhetoric
depicting Optimism increased within Presidents’ State of the Union addresses, followers tended to rate the
speeches more positively.
24
Table 2
Correlations and Descriptives
Variable
M
SD
1
–
2
1. Optimism
67.23
10.09
2. Activity
76.27
3.25
-0.58*
–
3. Commonality
60.23
15.51
0.00
0.46*
3.62
1.52
0.32*
-0.15*
4. Follower Evaluation
3
4
–
0.10*
_
*p < .01.
A 2-way between subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) was then conducted to compare the
effects of party match (Match VS Non-Match) and party affiliation (Republican VS Democrat) on follower
evaluation (hypothesis four). As expected, a main effect of party match on follower evaluation was found,
F(1, 3542) = 506.12, p < .001, indicating that party match appeared to influence the way followers rated
Presidents’ State of the Union addresses (see Figure 1). As demonstrated in Figure 1, an interaction was
also found between party match and party affiliation, F(1, 3542) = 60.33, p < .001., indicating that
Democrats were more affected by party match than Republicans were. For example, when there was party
match, Democrats gave higher evaluations than Republicans, but when there was no party match,
Republicans gave higher evaluations than Democrats.
25
Figure 1. Interaction between Party Match and Party Affiliation.
5
4.5
Follower Evaluation
4
3.5
3
2.5
Match
2
Non-match
1.5
1
0.5
0
Democrat
Republican
Political Party
To understand the unique contribution of Optimism, Activity, and Commonalty in the explanation
of follower evaluation, a hierarchical multiple regression was conducted with party match, Optimism,
Activity, and Commonality as predictor variables. Party match was added to the regression equation in the
first step and the rhetorical themes of Optimism, Activity, and Commonality were added in the second step,
which highlighted the extent to which the rhetorical themes could be used to predict follower evaluation
beyond party match. Table 2 displays the means and standard deviations for each of these variables as well
as Pearson correlation coefficients for the predictor and criterion variables. All predictor variables were
examined for collinearity prior to analyzing the regression results. The variance inflation factor (VIF) was
less than 2.3 and tolerance was above .45 for all predictors, indicating that the independent variables were
not too interrelated for analysis.
The results of the first model, with only party match as a predictor, significantly predicted
follower evaluation [b = -.30, t(3548) = -18.99, p < .001]. Party match also explained a significant
proportion of variance in follower evaluation, R2= .10, F(1, 3548)= 360.76, p < .001 (see Table 3 for
26
details). The second model, which added Optimism [b = .28, t(3546) = 13.92, p < .001], Activity [b = -.07,
t(3546) = -2.95, p < .01], and Commonality [b = .15, t(3546) = 7.94, p < .001] as predictors, significantly
predicted follower evaluation. These three rhetorical themes also explained a significant proportion of
variance in follower evaluation [R2= .21, F(4, 3545)= 228.85, p < .001] (see Table 3 for details). As
expected, the three rhetorical themes of Optimism, Activity, and Commonality uniquely contributed to the
explanation of follower evaluation.
27
Table 3
Hierarchical Multiple Linear Regression Analysis
Follower Reaction
B
SE B
β
Step 1
Party Match
-0.95
0.05
-0.30
-0.96
0.05
-0.31
0.04
0.00
0.28
-0.03
0.01
-0.07
Commonality
0.01
0.00
0.15
R2
0.21
R2 Change
0.11
R2
0.09
R2 Change
0.09
F Change
360.76*
Step 2
Party Match
Optimism
Activity
F Change
167.91*
Note: N = 3,550 for party match.
*p < .001.
An exploratory two-way ANOVA was ran to look at the relationship between president and
follower party affiliation. Follower evaluation was entered as the dependent variable and president party
affiliation and follower party affiliation were entered as the independent variables. During this exploration,
an interaction between president and follower party affiliation, F(5, 3539) = 103.05, p < .01, was identified.
28
As can be seen in Figure 2, followers who identified as Democrats, Independents, refused to state
their party affiliation, or those who reported they didn’t know which party they associated themselves with,
rated Presidents’ State of the Union Addresses more positively when the Presidents’ identified as a
Democrat. Followers who identified themselves as Republican or Other tended to rate Presidents’ State of
the Union addresses more positively when the Presidents’ identified as a Republican.
Figure 2. Interaction between President and Follower Party Affiliation
5
4.5
Follower Evaluation
4
3.5
3
Republican
Other
2.5
Independent
2
Don't Know
1.5
Democrat
1
0.5
0
Republican
Democrat
Presidents Political Party Affiliation
29
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION
Study Purpose and Overview of Findings
This research made use of existing theory and transformational leadership literature by exploring
the relationship between the rhetoric of various presidents and followers’ overall evaluations of presidential
speeches. Most research dealing with leader-follower interactions study the interactions from a leaders’
point of view. This research helps bridge this gap in the literature by focusing on leader-follower
interactions from the followers’ perspective.
Additionally, a lack of non-traditional survey methods in leadership literature has been noted by
multiple researchers (Bligh et al., 2004; Conger & Toegel, 2002; Insch, More & Murphy, 1997). This study
addressed this issue by using a content analysis software program to categorize communication between
presidents and their followers. The unique design of this study may help explain existing theory and help
better direct future research. The results of this study may also be helpful to organizations and individuals
who want to develop new or improve existing training programs for leaders.
Summary of Results
Based on existing theory and research, this study proposed that the rhetorical themes of Optimism,
Activity, and Commonality would be positively correlated with follower evaluation. Additionally, a main
effect of party affiliation match on follower evaluation was expected. As predicted in hypotheses one,
results indicated that as the use of rhetoric depicting Optimism increased within Presidents’ State of the
Union addresses, followers tended to rate the speeches more positively. As predicted in hypothesis three, as
the use of Commonality increased, so did follower evaluation. There was, however, little shared variance
between follower evaluation and Commonality, indicating the correlation should be interpreted lightly.
Contradicting hypothesis two, results showed that as the use of rhetoric depicting Activity
increased within President’s State of the Union addresses, followers tended to slightly rate the speeches
30
more negatively. There was little shared variance between follower evaluation and Activity, so the
correlation should be interpreted with caution. This result goes against existing theory and research,
indicating that additional research is needed to explain this relationship. Some potential causes involve
current events and differences between Presidents. For example, the current war may have altered the way
President’s relay information and the manner in which followers respond to that information. Additionally,
five of eight data sets were constructed when President Bush was in office; It’s possible that he (or perhaps
the other Presidents) had a unique effect on followers. As predicted in hypothesis four, this study found that
party match appears to influence the way followers rate Presidents’ State of the Union addresses.
An exploration of this result indicated: (1) there was an interaction between party match and
follower party affiliation, (2) party match appeared to influence Democrats’ and Republicans’ evaluation of
the speeches differently, and (3) there was an interaction of President and follower party affiliation. This
result may be explained by the Strategic Party Model, developed by Lebo, McGlynn, and Koger (2007). In
their model, Lebo et al. (2007) identified two main predictors of a party’s voting unity: (1) the unity of the
opposing party and (2) the difference between the parties during the previous year. Perhaps party match
appeared to influence Democrats’ overall evaluation of the speeches more than Republicans’ overall
evaluation of the speeches because five of the eight data sets in this study were constructed while a
Republican President was in office. Based on the Strategic Party Model, Democrats may have felt more
inclined to evaluate Democratic Presidents more favorably than Republicans felt inclined to rate
Republican Presidents because the Republican Presidents appeared to have a strong unity with their
followers in previous years.
As expected, transformational leadership theory and previous research related to charisma are
supported by the current findings. For instance, the present research compliments the notion that leaders
who present hopeful and compelling solutions to common issues tend to be perceived more positively by
followers. This research also supports previous findings that indicated perceptions of leaders are even more
positive when the leaders have strong, shared beliefs with their followers. The main effect of party match
31
on follower evaluation is supported by the Social Identity Theory, the positive link between leader-follower
shared values and unconditional trust, and the link between unconditional trust and leader satisfaction.
Overall, the results of this archival-based study complement the results of previous qualitative
research. Knowing how followers react to the rhetorical themes of Optimism, Activity, and Commonality
may help companies develop effective or refine existing leader training programs. Additionally, the results
of this study help identify a link between transformational leadership, communication, and political bodies
of literature.
Strengths and Weaknesses
The archival nature of this study has both strengths and weaknesses. Data collected with the selfreported telephone surveys resulted in a large (N= 3,552), diverse sample of participants. The large sample
size added to the statistical power of this study, while decreasing the effect non-representative data had on
the results. Participants were surveyed nationwide and were included despite their political party affiliation,
age (18 or older), gender, or religion.
Data was obtained over a total of eight years and focused on speeches given by three presidents.
Because survey data was collected before this study was even underway, there was no way for surveyors to
introduce experimenter bias. It is important to note, however, that a true causal relationship cannot be
identified between Presidents’ level of Optimism, Activity, and Commonality and followers’ evaluations of
their speeches. The results of this study will be strictly correlational, as none of the independent variables
were manipulated.
With the exception of Activity, the results of this study were consistent with existing theory and
research. The results may, however, only apply to presidential speeches and individuals in the United States
who are 18 years old or older. Due to the archival nature of this study, it is possible that historical events
influenced followers’ reactions to the rhetoric of the State of the Union addresses. Surveyors had no control
over the survey environment or the environment in which followers viewed the presidential State of the
Union address. Surveyors were also unable to ensure that each follower did indeed watch the State of the
32
Union address the survey was based on. It is unclear whether or not the sample in this study is
representative of all followers because individuals who agreed to respond to the telephone survey may be
different from those who chose not to respond to the survey. Additionally, minorities appear to be
underrepresented in the current sample when compared to U.S. ethnicity data obtained by the 2010 Census
Bureau.
Followers’ previously-held beliefs about the president giving the speech may have influenced their
reactions. The survey data did not report followers’ previously-held beliefs about the president in question,
making it difficult to distinguish between follower reactions based on belief validation and reactions based
on the actual rhetoric of the speech. To help account for previous-held beliefs regarding the President, this
study explored the effects of political party and party match. These issues should be kept in mind when
results are interpreted.
A major strength of this study is the exceptional reliability that results from using computerized
content analysis software like DICTION. DICTION significantly reduces the measurement error associated
with analyzing the content of the political speeches because it objectively identifies rhetoric, which under
repeated measurements, has been shown to represent the constructs of Optimism, Activity, and
Commonality. All of DICTION’s pre-established constructs are based on theory and have been used
successfully by political, leadership, and communication researchers.
Using computerized content analysis software has additional benefits: a large quantity of text can
be analyzed in a short period of time, human coding errors are not an issue, it can be used to conduct both
inductive and deductive research, researchers can compare communication from different individuals,
researchers can compare different modes of communication (i.e. speech versus interview), it’s an
unobtrusive way to look at cognitions, recall biases are usually avoided, it’s associated with high reliability,
and it makes replicating research easier. Computerized content analysis also has its drawbacks: the theory
used to develop pre-established variables and dictionaries may not be appropriate for all research questions,
33
how and why words are chosen cannot be identified, and it may negatively impact a study’s content
validity.
Unlike DICTION, the telephone surveys may pose a threat to the reliability of this study. Follower
evaluation of a President’s State of the Union address was based solely on one question that asked
followers to indicate the degree to which they experienced a negative or positive overall reaction to the
State of the Union address they viewed. This was the only question that was common among each survey
given in the eight-year span of time that was also relevant to the dependent variable in this study. In
addition, multiple surveyors collected data over a span of many years; each surveyor may have introduced
measurement error due to varying levels of training and survey administration proficiency.
Future Directions
The current research focused on integrating transformational leadership with rhetoric. Price and
Wren (2007) noted that rhetorical leaders view the world as a complex configuration of different forces,
which together form a rhetorical situation. Exploring the effects of these different forces (people, traditions,
laws, religions, beliefs, attitudes, values, and/or relationships) may help link rhetoric and leadership to other
bodies of literature. Merging additional bodies of literature with rhetoric, such as non-transformational
leadership, organizational behavior, stereotyping, cross-cultural phenomena, personality, and politics, may
help explain and expand the results of this study as well as add to the prospective literature base(s).
Previous studies support the idea that the leader-follower relationship is dynamic and interactive.
For example, Gillespie and Mann (2004) and Lewicki et al. (1998) found that leaders and followers that
with high trust relationships tend to agree more with each other’s values than leaders and followers with
low trust relationships. Gillespie and Mann (2004) also found a strong positive correlation between
followers’ trust in the leader and ratings of leader effectiveness, satisfaction with the leader, extra effort
engaged in by followers on behalf of the leader, and the strength of the leader-follower bond. Future
research should explore the effect different independent variables (trust, affect, personality factors, gender,
ethnicity, etc.) have on follower evaluation.
34
Other field studies have found a positive correlation between leader behavior and follower
satisfaction, work performance, and effort. Researchers might want to consider conducting a study similar
to this one that incorporates other types of leaders, speeches, samples, and settings to see if follower
behavior is affected by these factors. Additionally, examining the differences between such factors in an
experimental setting, using non-archival data, might help identify important causal relationships.
Researchers have found that it is possible to be emotionally affected by leaders’ non-verbal
behavior, independent of the leaders’ verbal behavior (Kuklinski, 2001). For this reason, it may be useful to
study the effect of non-verbal behavior on follower evaluation. For example, instead of analyzing only the
text of speeches in relation to followers’ evaluations of the speeches, researchers may want to conduct an
experimental study in which some participants: (1) watch a muted taping of a speech, (2) watch a taping of
the speech with sound, and (3) read the speech as opposed to watching it.
To overcome some of the weaknesses in this study, future research may want to: (1) assess
followers’ previously-held beliefs about the leader in question, (2) identify why leaders choose to use
specific words while speaking to followers, (3) compare DICTION’s content analysis results to human
content analysis results, and (4) expand the dependent variable.
Future research should focus on identifying why a negative correlation occurred between Activity
and follower evaluation. Researchers should also examine how followers, who identify with political
parties other than Republican and Democratic parties, evaluate State of the Union addresses. Furthermore
researcher should formally explore why Party match appears to influence Democrats’ evaluations of
speeches more so than Republicans’ evaluation of speeches.
Broader Significance of Findings
These findings indicate that nontraditional research methods can be successfully used to explain
existing theory and research as well as bridge gaps between various bodies of literature. Specifically, this
study confirms what Bligh et al. (2004) concluded- computerized content analysis software, such as
DICTION, can be a valuable and effective content analysis tool.
35
The results of this study also provide a unique perspective on the relationship between party match
and follower evaluation, which can be used to direct future research. For example, this study identified that
the influence of party match varied for followers of different political party affiliations, raising the
question: (1) why were Democrats more affected by party match than Republicans?
Raising even more questions, this study found a discrepancy between transformational leadership
literature and Activity. It is unclear why a negative correlation between Activity and follower evaluation
occurred. However, it is clear that there is still much to learn about leadership and it’s interaction with other
bodies of literature. Identifying innovative and alternative ways to test existing theory and literature may
help pave the path to new discoveries.
36
REFERENCES
Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2006). Exploring the Bases of Partisanship in the American
Electorate: Social Identity vs. Ideology. Political Research Quarterly, 59, 175-187.
Arpan, L. M. (2002). When in Rome? The effects of spokesperson ethnicity on audience evaluation of
crisis communication. Journal of Business Communications, 39, 314-339.
Avolio, B. J. and Gibbons, T. C. (1988). Developing transformational leaders: A life-span approach. In
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational
effectiveness. (pp. 276-308). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational
leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Benoit, W. L. (1997). Image repair discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 23, 177186.
Benson, J. A. (1988). Crisis revisited: An analysis of strategies used by Tylenol in the second tampering
episode. Central States Speech Journal, 39, 49-66.
Binning, K. R., Sherman, D. K., Cohen, G. L., and Heitland, K. (2010). Seeing the Other Side: Reducing
Political Partisanship via Self-Affirmation in the 2008 Presidential Election. Analyses of Social
Issues and Public Policy, 10, 276-292.
Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Meindl, J. R. (2004). Charisma under Crisis: Presidential Leadership,
Rhetoric, and Media Responses Before and After the September 11th Terrorist Attacks. The
Leadership Quarterly, 15, 211-239.
Brinson, S. L., & Benoit, W. L. (1996). Dow Corning’s image repair strategies in the breast implant crisis.
Communication Quarterly, 44, 29-41.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row, Publishers.
37
Bycio, P., Hackett, R., & Allen, J. (1995). Further assessments of Bass’s (1985) conceptualization of
transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468–478.
Cohen, G. L., Sherman, D. K., Bastardi, A., McGoey, M., Hsu, A., & Ross, L. (2007). Bridging the partisan
divide: Self-affirmation reduces ideological closed-mindedness and inflexibility in negotiation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 415–430.
Coombs,W. T. (1995). Choosing the right words: The development of guidelines for the selection of the
appropriate crisis-response strategies. Management Communication Quarterly, 8, 447-476.
Coombs, W. T. (1999). Information and compassion in crisis responses: A test of their effects. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 11, 125-142.
Conger, J. A. 1991. Inspiring others: The language of leadership. Academy of Management Executive, 5,
31-45.
Conger, J. A., & Toegel, G. (2002). A story of missed opportunities: Qualitative methods for leadership
research and practice. In K. W. Parry & J. R. Meindl (Eds.), Grounding leadership theory and
research: Issues, perspectives, and methods (pp. 175–197). Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing.
DigitText. (2010). DICTION 5.0: the text analysis program. Retrieved from
http://www.dictionsoftware.com/index.php
Dorsey, L. G. (2002). The Presidency and Rhetorical Leadership. Texas A&M University Press.
Druckman, J. N. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? The Journal of Politics 63,
1041-1066.
Druckman, J. N., and Holmes, J. W. (2004). Does Presidential Rhetoric Matter? Priming and Presidential
Approval. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 34, 755-778.
Edwards, G. C. (2003). On deaf ears: The limits of the bully pulpit. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
38
Edwards, H. H. (2006). A Rhetorical Typology for Studying the Audience Role in Public Relations
Communication: The Avon 3-Day Disruption as Exemplar. Journal of Communication, 56, 836860.
Ellis, R. J. (1998). Speaking to the people: the rhetorical presidency in historical perspective. The
University of Massachusetts Press.
Emrich, C. G., Brower, H. H., Feldman, J. M., and Garland H. (1991). Images in words: Presidential
rhetoric, charisma, and greatness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 527-557.
Evans, G., & Pickup, M. (2010). Reversing the Causal Arrow: The Political Conditioning of Economic
Perceptions in the 2000--2004 U.S. Presidential Election Cycle. The Journal of Politics, 72, 12361251.
Fairhurst, G. T. & Sarr, R. A. (1996). The art of framing. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.
Fishman, D. A. (1999). Value Jet Flight 592: Crisis communication theory blended and extended.
Communication Quarterly, 47, 345-375.
Forgas, J. P. (1995). "Mood and judgment: The Affect Infusion Model (AIM)". Psychological Bulletin,
117, 39–66.
Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The Charismatic Relationship: A Dramaturgical Perspective.
Academy of Management Review, 23, 32-58.
Gillespie, N. A., & Mann, L. (2004). Transformational leadership and shared values: the building blocks of
trust. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 588-607.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Golden, J. L., Berquist, G. F., Coleman, W. E., Sproule, J. M. (2003). The Rhetoric of Western
Thought. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Greene, S. (2004). Social Identity Theory and Party Identification. Social Science Quarterly, 85, 136-153.
39
Griffin-Padgett, D., & Allison, D. (2010). Making a Case for Restorative Rhetoric: Mayor Rudolph
Giuliani & Mayor Ray Nagin’s Response to Disaster, Communication Monographs, 77, 376-392.
Hale, J. E., Dulek, R. E., & Hale, D. P. (2005). Crisis response communication challenges: Building theory
from qualitative data. Journal of Business Communication, 42, 112-134.
Hart, R. P. (2000a). Campaign Talk: Why Elections Are Good for Us. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Hart, R. P. (2000b). DICTION 5.0: The text-analysis program. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hart, R. P., & Carroll, C. E. (2011). DICTION 6.0: The text-analysis program. Austin, TX: Digitext.
Hogg, M. A. (2001). A Social Identity Theory of Leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
5, 184-200.
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.
Insch, G. S., Moore, J. E., & Murphy, L. D. (1997). Content analysis in leadership research: Examples,
procedures, and suggestions for future use. The Leadership Quarterly, 8, 1–25.
Iyengar, S. & McGuire, W. J. (1995). Explorations in political psychology. Duke University Press.
Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: implications for cooperation
and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23, 531-546.
Kaiser, R. B., Hogan, R., & Craig, S. B. (2008). Leadership and the Fate of Organizations. American
Psychologist, 63, 96-110.
Kirkpatrick, S. A. & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic components
on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 36-51.
Klein, K. J., & House, R. J. (1995). On fire: Charismatic leadership and levels of analysis. Leadership
Quarterly, 6, 183-198.
40
Kuklinski, J. H. (2001). Citizens and politics: perspectives from political psychology. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Lang, M. (2010).Transformational Leadership: Fundamentals – Models – Differences – Impact on
employees [published seminar paper]. Norderstedt, Germany: Druck und Binding: Books on
Demand.
Lebo, M. J., McGlynn, A. J., Koger, G. (2007). Strategic Party Government: Party Influence in Congress,
1789 – 2000. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 464-481.
Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: new relationships and realities.
The Academy of Management Review, 23, 438-458.
Marques, J. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Leyens, J. P. (1988). The black sheep effect: Judgmental extremity
towards ingroup members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 18, 1–16.
McCloskey, D. N. (2011). The Rhetoric of the Economy and the Polity. Annual Review of Political
Science, 14, 181-199. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-041309-110519
Merolla, J. L., Ramos, J. M., & Zechmeister, E. J. (2007). Crisis, charisma, and consequences: Evidence
from the 2004 presidential election. The Journal of Politics, 69, 30-42.
Miller, J. M., and Krosnick, J. A. (2000). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations:
Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political
Science 44, 295-309.
Miner, J. B. (2005). Organizational behavior one: Essential theories of motivation and leadership.
Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, Inc.
Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and Practice (5th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
41
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Moorman, R., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and
their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors.
Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142.
Price, T. L. & Wren, J. T. (2007). The Values of Presidential Leadership. New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Rosenberg, A. & Hirschberg, J. (2009). Charisma perception from text to speech. Speech Communication,
51, 640-655.
Rubin, R. S., Munz, D. C., and Bommer, W. H. (2005). Leading From Within: The Effects of Emotion
Recognition and Personality on Transformational Leadership Behavior. Academy of Management
Journal, 48, 845-858.
Stephens, K. K., Malone, P. C., & Bailey, C. M. (2005). Communicating with stakeholders during a crisis:
Evaluating message strategies. Journal of Business Communication, 42, 390-419.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Social Categorization, Social Identity, and Social Comparisons. In H. Tajfel (Ed.),
Differentiation Between Social Groups (pp. 61-76). London: Academic Press.
Whittington, J. L., Coker, R. H., Goodwin, V. L., Ickes, W., & Murray, B. (2009). Transactional
Leadership Revisited: Self-Other Agreement and Its Consequences. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 39, 1860-1886.
Whittington, J. L., Goodwin, V. L., & Murray, B. (2004). Transformational leadership, goal difficulty, and
task design: Independent and interactive effects on employee outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 15,
593–606.
Williams, D. E., & Olaniran, B. A. (2002). Crisis communication in racial issues. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 30, 293-313.
Yammarino, F., & Bass, B. (1990). Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis. Human
Relations, 43, 975–995.
42
Yukl, G. A. (1989a). Leadership in organizations (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Yukl, G. A. (1989b). Managerial leadership: a review of theory and research. Yearly Review of
Management, 15, 251-289.
Zarefsky, D. (2000). Lincoln’s 1862 Annual Message: A Paradigm of Rhetorical Leadership. Rhetoric and
public Affairs, 3, 5-14.