Abstract
Charismatic leaders present intriguing examples of the use of power through language. The prevailing neo-charismatic perspective, however, is based predominately on Western theories and research examining U.S. presidents. This study moves beyond this sample by examining language differences between a moral and a toxic leader. Content analysis was used to explore the rhetoric of Martin Luther King Jr. and Adolf Hitler, whose distinct motives play out over their careers and during crises. Although some differences were predictable (i.e., Martin Luther King Jr. used more Optimistic language, whereas Hitler was higher in Power and Aggression), the changes over time suggest keys to their differing motives. Among other findings, Martin Luther King Jr. was remarkably consistent in his rhetoric, whereas Hitler used increasing Power and Aggressive language as his career progressed. While not providing definitive answers, these preliminary results suggest that further study is warranted into the complex interactions between rhetoric and leadership.
The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.
I am not interested in power for power’s sake, but I’m interested in power that is moral, that is right and that is good.
In discussions of leadership, the topic of charisma inevitably evokes mixed reactions from scholars and lay people alike. Some see charisma as a tool used to manipulate, often against the will of the followers; others see it as a necessity to attain meaningful change. Theories examining charisma, however, are based predominately on the examination of popular U.S. leaders, thereby reducing their generalizability across cultural and moral boundaries. We therefore argue that theory development related to charismatic leaders must also include insights gained from the examination of all types of charismatic leaders including those who represent the darker side of charisma.
Charismatic Leadership
Interestingly, scholars dating back to the 1920s defined charisma as a trait that gave the leader mystical powers (Beyer, 1999; Emrich, Brower, Feldman, & Garland, 2001; Weber, 1947). Leadership research then progressed to examine leaders’ behaviors and the situational factors that influenced their effectiveness (Beyer, 1999; Conger & Kanungo, 1988; House, 1999). By the 1990s, leadership research gave rise to the neo-charismatic approach grounded in the psychological and behavioral aspects of leadership (Beyer, 1999; Conger & Kanungo, 1988; House, 1999). This school of thought integrates trait, behavioral, and contingency theories into the complex relationship between charismatic leaders and their followers (Beyer, 1999; Conger & Kanungo, 1988; House, 1999). Our study capitalizes on the integration of trait, behavioral, and situational factors to examine the pull of charisma expressed through language. To date, however, researchers do not agree on a common definition of charisma. Following House and Shamir’s (1993) examination of the theories of charismatic leadership, most scholars agree that among other characteristics, charismatic leaders possess an ability to transform their followers by appealing to their emotions. For example, Erez, Misangyi, Johnson, and LaPine (2008) demonstrated that when charismatic leaders display positive emotions, their followers tend to feel positive emotions as well. On the darker side, these researchers also suggested that when a leader displays aroused emotions, it could result in unintended consequences such as aggression in their followers, although it should be noted that this was not directly tested (Erez et al., 2008). Such research highlights the need for further examination concerning how different charismatic leaders evoke emotional responses in their followers, particularly when the leader is known only from a distance with much of the followers’ knowledge gained mainly through the leader’s use of language.
Charisma’s Link to Language
We gain insight into our distant leaders mainly by their rhetoric, which attempts to influence us. In this sense, rhetoric, or the art of speaking effectively, can be thought of as the language of leadership. According to Applebome (2008), “Even in the age of TiVo, YouTube, and Yahoo News, much power still resides in rhetoric rendered eloquently and delivered with oratorical skill” (p. 43). Moreover, scholars contend that the success of leaders may rest on the identification that they are able to build with their followers through their oratorical skill (Den Hartog & Verburg, 1997; Emrich et al., 2001; Erez et al., 2008; Shamir, Arthur, & House, 1994; Teten, 2003). In sum, this research on leadership suggests a critical link between the leader’s ability to communicate, in presentation style and content of the message, and his or her charisma. If we are to learn more about charismatic influence, a logical place to look is by examining the word choices that leaders use to evoke such strong pull with their followers.
In response, this study examines the rhetoric of speeches by utilizing two cases of influential and charismatic leaders, Adolf Hitler and Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK). Perhaps above all others, these two represent the epitome of the extraordinary use of charismatic rhetoric, albeit for clearly differing ends. MLK and Hitler were powerful, charismatic leaders whose distinctive ethical positions placed them at opposite ends of a morality continuum. For the purposes of our study, MLK represents a moral leader as defined by Kellerman (2004) as a leader who engages followers on behalf of the common good. Conversely, Hitler represents a toxic leader, as defined by Lipman-Blumen (2005), who engages in destructive behavior and inflicts serious harm as a leader. Utilizing these definitions, the neo-charismatic perspective suggests that leadership language imbedded in the historical context and influenced by the leader’s persona constitutes an important part in understanding charismatic appeal. By contrasting a moral leader with a toxic leader, we hope to add additional insights that can further refine charismatic leadership theory development. More specifically, our study asks what differences in language, if any, can be detected between a toxic and an ethical leader? After all, to be forewarned is to be forearmed.
Recently, charismatic rhetoric has been studied mainly by examining U.S. presidents (Bligh, Kohles, & Meindl, 2004b; Emrich et al., 2001; Seyranian & Bligh, 2008; Teten, 2003; Winter, 1999). No study to date, however, has been conducted comparing the language of a toxic leader with a moral leader. As such, this study addresses a limitation in the literature and makes an important contribution to the concerns that our current leadership theories are deeply rooted in Western ideals and lack exploration beyond U.S. presidents (Bligh & Robinson, 2010).
For the purposes of our study, we will examine Hitler and MLK’s language through three lenses. The first lens explores language utilizing Winter’s (1993) theoretical underpinning in examining the motives of power and affiliation. Our study highlights the fascinating differences between our two leaders and, thereby, contributes to further refinement of Winter’s theoretic basis. The second lens explores rhetoric changes over time as suggested by Seyranian and Bligh’s (2008) examination of U.S. presidents. An examination of our two leaders’ rhetoric as it changes over the course of their careers allows us to expand the reach of previous findings, thereby increasing generalizability across different types of leaders. The third lens investigates leadership language in times of perceived crisis, building on the work of Bligh, Kohles, and Meindl (2004a) in their examination of President George W. Bush. With the differing responses to crises between MLK and Hitler, we further extend our understanding of how different types of charismatic leaders communicate their visions. Although not offering definitive answers, this study responds to a call for insights on which to cultivate theory development in the expression of leadership through language (Gellis, 2002; Shamir et al., 1994).
Personalized Power Orientation
Scholars often distinguish charismatic leaders by defining their power orientation between personalized power and socialized power. Hitler illustrated a personalized power orientation, which is defined as an “emphasis on personal identification . . . and the intentional desire to instill devotion to themselves rather than to ideals” (Yukl, 2006, p. 259). For example, Abel remarked that “the reverence with which his followers regarded Hitler was the outstanding feature of the movement” (p. 151). Moreover, Yukl (2006) described those with a personalized power orientation as using that power to (a) aggrandize themselves, (b) satisfy a need for esteem and status, (c) centralize authority, (d) dominate subordinates, (e) restrict information, (f) control through reward and punishment, and (g) create loyalty to the leader. While at first appearing to be a white knight, these leaders progress down an increasingly more dangerous path, which makes the analysis of their speeches over time an important contribution to our existing literature.
Socialized Power Orientation
Conversely, leaders such as MLK are known to use their charisma to further their cause. MLK displayed a socialized power orientation or “an emphasis on internalization of values rather than personal identification” (Yukl, 2006, p. 259). Yukl (2006) stated that these leaders use their power to (a) benefit others, (b) take a long-term view, (c) seek advice from others, (d) build commitment, (e) coach subordinates, and (f) create loyalty to the cause. For example, in a speech following the bombings in Montgomery in January 1957, MLK stated, “Lord, I hope no one will have to die as a result of our struggle for freedom in Montgomery. Certainly I don’t want to die. But if anyone has to die, let it be me” (King, 1993). Leaders with a socialized power orientation are often remembered for their self-sacrifice; Gandhi’s hunger strikes and Nelson Mandela’s years in prison are two popular contemporary examples from which to draw.
A leader’s power orientation is often only assessed after the fact as a matter of historical record. As such, central questions remain: Are these power orientation differences manifested in the speeches of these leaders? When those seeking our support speak, do we hear “red flags” in their language that indicates their true power orientation? And if no differences are uncovered, what other clues must we discover to reveal the power orientation that particular leaders hold?
Delivery Style
Leadership studies, however, must consider the content and the delivery of the leader’s speech. Holladay and Coombs (1994) described the delivery factors for charismatic leaders as eye contact, vocal variety, facial expression, and hand gestures. Shamir et al. (1994) noted the influence of a strong delivery style in emotionally charging an audience. In relating this insight to our two leaders, Hitler and MLK were known for their commanding presentation styles. Bullock (1961) wrote that “Hitler’s power to bewitch an audience has been likened to the occult arts of the African medicine-man . . . ; others have compared it with the sensitivity of a medium and the magnetism of a hypnotist” (p. 325). MLK also possessed extraordinary oratory skill as noted by Oates (1982) who stated, “People idolized him all the same, whites because he appealed to the best in America and did not rant at them. Negroes because he articulated their longing, hurts, and aspirations with what Time called an ‘indescribable capacity for empathy’” (p. 272). Behind such forceful delivery, however, followers’ responses are likely to be transitory unless there is language that creates an interpretation of reality that has a lasting impact on follower’s behavior (Den Hartog, House, Hanges, Ruiz-Quintanilla, & Dorfman, 1999; Shamir et al., 1994). As such, Hitler and MLK represent intriguing case studies of the content of charismatic rhetoric by allowing us to hold a powerful delivery style as a constant for both leaders.
Power and Affiliation Motives
Relevant to an analysis of power, McClelland (1975) introduced a model utilizing the psychological factors of power and affiliation, as they related to historical periods of war and peace. McClelland and Burnham (1976) described those individuals with high power motivation as seeking out leadership roles, being concerned with prestige, and able to create inspirational work climates. The downside to this high-power motivation is that these individuals can be power seeking, confrontational, and exploitive. In contrast, leaders with high-affiliation motivation are concerned with warm and close relationships with others. They are cooperative and friendly (McAdams, 1985; McClelland & Burnham, 1976; Winter, 1993).
McClelland’s (1975) model was subsequently refined as it pertains to historical data, particularly the correspondence between countries and through political speeches in times of war and peace (Winter, 1993). Winter’s (1993) model of Cyclical Variation in Motives and Social Events suggested that when a country’s collective motive level was high in power and low in affiliation, the result was war; conversely, when the motive level was low in power and high in affiliation, the result was peace seeking. Winter tested his model using three historical time periods: 300 years of British history, World War I, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. His results suggested that the psychological motive of power was significantly higher in times of war than in times of peace. The results for affiliation were mixed suggesting that further research was needed. While Winter examined a collective motive by combining communications from various sources between countries, he also suggested that the results fit the historical accounts of the individual leaders of the time.
The implications of this model for individual leaders are intriguing. Although historical events such as World War II and the Civil Rights movement are a complex drama of political figures, economic factors, and social attitudes, there is no doubt that the leaders of these times played a pivotal role. An analysis of the leader’s language therefore contributes significantly to our theoretical understanding of the expression of motives to relevant constituents.
For example, in an analysis of U.S. President Clinton’s terms in office, Winter (1999) noted that Clinton was initially high on affiliation and only moderate on power. Over his years in office, however, Clinton’s power motivation increased, as seen in his rhetoric. Winter concluded that this shift moved Clinton toward a higher “pleasure of politics” in his later years in office. Whether Clinton’s motives actually shifted is still unclear. What did appear to shift through his terms in office was his expression of those motives through his choice of language.
Our first lens uses Winter’s (1999) model as the theoretical basis for conceptualizing how a leader’s aspirations for power and affiliation may be expressed through rhetoric. By moving beyond the use of U.S. presidents as our sample, this study expands the reach of Winter’s theory to examine differences between a social movement leader and a foreign political leader. Corresponding to Winter’s analysis, Hitler led his country into war, whereas MLK sought social change through peaceful measures. Based on these historical outcomes, Hitler, as a representative of a personalized power leader, is therefore expected to be high in Power terms and low in Affiliation terms. Contrastingly, MLK, representing a socialized power perspective, is expected to be low in Power terms and high in Affiliation terms. We, therefore, propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1a: Hitler will score significantly higher than MLK on constructs linked to Power.
Hypothesis 1b: MLK will score significantly higher than Hitler on constructs linked to Affiliation.
Changes in Rhetoric Over Time
Building on Winter’s (1999) theory, further evidence of a shift in political rhetoric over time is presented by Seyranian and Bligh (2008) in their examination of U.S. presidents’ rhetoric of social change. Social change was broadly defined in this study to include any modification of the status quo (Seyranian & Bligh, 2008). This study theorized that when charismatic leaders are attempting to implement change, they convey their influence over three communication phases. The first phase of social change is “frame-breaking,” where charismatic leaders increase their identification with their followers through inclusive language and emphasize dissatisfaction with the status quo, thereby inducing the urgency for change. These leaders use language of inclusion, similarity, familiarity, and lower self-reference terms, which increases followers’ collective and self-efficacy (Seyranian & Bligh, 2008; Shamir et al., 1994). The second phase is “frame-moving,” where leaders use high levels of negation language to break from the previously held values and replace those with the leader’s vision (Seyranian & Bligh, 2008). The third phase of social change is “frame-realigning,” where charismatic leaders attempt to inspire their followers by affirming their values and inspiring them to embrace change. Their rhetoric, therefore, highlights themes of courage, wisdom, and self-sacrifice (Seyranian & Bligh, 2008).
Leadership scholars point out the value of examining changes in charismatic rhetoric over time, as shifts in language patterns may emerge (Emrich et al., 2001; Seyranian & Bligh, 2008; Winter, 1999). By examining longitudinal data, this study of Hitler and MLK adds to the literature on charismatic leader language changes over time. Our analysis, therefore, will examine the speeches of our two leaders in three phases: (a) early career phase, (b) midcareer phase, and (c) late career phase. Toxic leaders, in particular, are theorized to attract followers in the early stages of their careers; the passage of time, however, denotes a shift in their dialogue more representative of their true aspirations. As Lipman-Blumen (2005) noted,
When toxicity of a leader is full-blown, we easily recognize it. Escaping the magnetic pull of more subtle toxic leaders or those in the early stages of toxicity is far more difficult, for they attract us with challenges and visions that excite and entrap us before we perceive their negative potential. (p. 220)
Although both leaders may communicate high Affiliation motives and inclusion terms in their early careers, Hitler is expected to increase in Power terminology across time compared with both his earlier speeches and in comparison with MLK. MLK is predicted to remain consistent in his expression of Affiliation terminology over the course of his career, with higher expression of terminology related to his Affiliation motive in comparison with Hitler. Grounded in the previous research on shifts in rhetoric across different career stages, we hypothesize the following for our two leaders:
Hypothesis 2a: Hitler will score significantly higher on constructs linked to Power with significant differences noted between his early career phase and late career phase rhetoric.
Hypothesis 2b: MLK will maintain consistent scores on constructs linked to Affiliation throughout his career phases.
Based on the earlier research by Seyranian and Bligh (2008), the early career phase of our two leaders should reflect an attempt to identify with their followers through Commonality terms and fewer Self-reference terms as well as expressing dissatisfaction with the status quo through words of Blame and Hardship. We, therefore, hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 2c: In early career phase, both leaders will use significantly more language of Commonality, Blame, and Hardship and significantly less Self-reference terms in comparison with their respective midcareer phase and late career phases.
By midcareer phase, Hitler and MLK are proposed to push their visions through Concrete and Insistence terms, thereby reducing the more Ambivalent terms used in the earlier and latter stages of their careers. The following is our hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2d: In midcareer phase, both leaders will use language that includes more Concrete and Insistence terminology and fewer Ambivalent terms in comparison with their language in their early or late career phases.
By their late career phases, our leaders look to inspire followers and urge action to implement their vision (Seyranian & Bligh, 2008). We, therefore, hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 2e: In late career phase, both leaders will use more Activity and Inspiration terms when compared with their respective midcareer phase and early career phase rhetoric.
Leadership Language in Response to Crisis
It appears that separate from career phase, a leader’s approach to crises may also be a factor in shifting his or her leadership rhetoric. Emrich et al. (2001) points out that much of the early literature on charismatic leadership asserted that a crisis was a necessary component for the rise of a charismatic leader. In response to a crisis, Bligh et al. (2004a) examined how President Bush’s language became more charismatic after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in the United States. The current study builds on this research by examining whether a leader’s approach to a crisis causes differences in his rhetoric to his followers.
Hitler and MLK perceived their historical situations as times of crisis. The Germany that gave rise to Hitler was plagued with political and social discontent. By 1929, Germany’s world trade was devastated by the war, inflation was rampant, and unemployment soared with most of the populous citing an ineffective government for its strife (Abel, 1966). For MLK, America’s fight for civil rights pitted black and white citizens against one another with often violent results. In the 1950s, and particularly in the Southern states, school desegregation and the increase in black voters gave rise to fears among whites that blacks would steal jobs and interracial marriage would destroy the American landscape (Oates, 1982).
Are philosophical differences in how these two leaders approached crises reflected in their language to their followers? If so, how would their terminology differ? The neo-charismatic approach suggests that charismatic leaders appeal to their followers’ emotions, at least in some part, through their language (House & Shamir, 1993). Moreover, Winter’s theoretical foundation further suggests a leader’s underlying motives may, in part, determine their approach to crisis (Winter, 1999). When communicating their vision, charismatic leaders must touch followers on a deep emotional level to prompt action (Emrich et al., 2001). MLK painted a vivid portrait of a society without prejudice through words of inspiration and inclusion: “I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality” (http://www.brainyquote.com). In contrast, Hitler revealed his vision as rooted in war and division: “Any alliance whose purpose is not the intention to wage war is senseless and useless” (http://www.brainyquote.com). MLK sought change through nonviolent civil disobedience, whereas Hitler sought more aggressive resolutions to crises. In this context, this study presents an enticing opportunity to compare language choices of a moral and toxic leader based on differing approaches to crises. These differences may have played out in higher Optimism terms and lower Aggression and Hardship scores for MLK in comparison with Hitler. These differences in strategy for dealing with crises led to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3a: MLK will score significantly higher on Optimistic terms than Hitler.
Hypothesis 3b: MLK will score significantly lower on Aggression and Hardship terms when compared with Hitler.
The current study moves beyond the existing literature by exploring how Power and Affiliation terms are reflected in leadership rhetoric by comparing a moral with a toxic leader across the span of their respective careers and in their approach to perceived crises. In sum, the literature suggests that leaders may construct their rhetoric depending on (a) their motives, (b) their career phase, and (c) their approach to perceived crises. These research findings provide the underpinning for our examination of Hitler’s and MLK’s rhetoric as well as suggesting that theorists include such findings in their future developments. The current study utilizes computerized content analysis as a means to quantify the leadership rhetoric. This method of examining leadership discourse has been used to study U.S. presidents (Bligh et al., 2004a, 2004b) and most recently, in a cross-cultural capacity, to examine Mahatma Gandhi (Bligh & Robinson, 2010).
Method
Sample
Our sample consists of speeches given by Hitler and MLK. The speeches were collected through a variety of online sources devoted to covering the lives of these two leaders. For a speech to be included in our analysis, four criteria were utilized. First, the speeches were delivered to an audience of the leaders’ followers. We excluded written press statements because they may have been crafted by staff members, without much input from the leader, as well as personal communications because leaders may use different languages when speaking on a more private level. Although our collected speeches may have been initially crafted by speech writers, we assume that the leaders will have substantial input because they must verbally commit to those words. Second, the speeches had to have been given across the leaders’ career to capture a comprehensive representation of their rhetoric to demonstrate any changes over time. Third, the speeches must have contained at least 500 words to allow the content analysis program to compare language across identical word counts. The software automatically divides longer text into 500 word sections making the word counts comparable. Fourth, the speeches were from reputable sources. The speeches were converted to text-only files that could be read by the content analysis software. Hitler’s speeches were translated from German into English to be read by the content analysis software. The search produced 75 speeches for Hitler ranging from 1922 to 1945 and 22 speeches for MLK spanning from 1954 to 1968 (See Appendix A for the list of speeches and source websites).
Procedure
In this study, the computerized content analysis program, Diction 5.0, was appropriate for use because it is designed for leadership dialogue and has been used in previous studies to analyze language in political speeches, media communication, and business settings (e.g., Bligh et al., 2004a; Hart, 2000; Hart & Jarvis, 1997; Seyranian & Bligh, 2008; Yuthas, Rogers, & Dillard, 2002). It is important to note that this is the first study to use this software in comparing a moral with a toxic leader.
Diction 5.0 software
Diction 5.0 is a Windows-based content analysis program that searches passages of text files for related words specific to particular research needs and, most importantly, related to the current study, verbal tone (Hart, 2000). Sydserff and Weetman (2002) found Diction 5.0 to have strong validity and reliability measures for coding and quantification of data. For example, in their study of “impression management,” Sydserff and Weetman noted the ease of use, objectivity, and reliability as positive attributes of the Diction 5.0 software. The dictionaries of terms imbedded in the Diction 5.0 program were constructed from the analysis of more than 20,000 texts with no duplication of words across dictionaries (Hart, 2000). Diction 5.0 also allows researchers to customize word constructs, thereby creating variables of interest for the particular research needs (Hart, 2000).
Sydserff and Weetman (2002) stated that as part of the “general category of form-oriented thematic content analysis,” Diction 5.0 results satisfied the essential requirements for validity and reliability in their study of business reports. Further testament to the software’s validity can be found in other methodological studies (Bligh et al., 2004b; Morris, 1994; West, 2001). This software also allows for an unbiased examination of specific terms deemed important; thus, only the constructs relevant to our research questions regarding charismatic rhetoric were included (see Appendix B).
Leaders’ career phases
The leaders’ speeches were coded to reflect early career phase, midcareer phase, and late career phase. For the purposes of the current study, Hitler’s early career phase was defined as the years from 1922 through 1932, following World War I, during which time the Nazi party grew from a small grassroots movement to a powerful political force. Hitler’s midcareer phase was defined as the years from 1933 through 1938, during which time Hitler was in power and rapidly changing the economic, political, and social structure of Germany. Hitler’s late career phase was defined as the years from 1939 through 1945, characterized by the end of World War II and his death.
The career phases for MLK were similarly defined. His early career phase spanned from 1954 through 1957, during that time the beginning of his leadership role in the Civil Rights movement was characterized. In 1958, MLK survived an early assassination attempt where he was stabbed with a letter opener during a book signing in Manhattan. His recovery resulted in a void of public speeches for approximately a year. His midcareer phase is thus defined as years from 1959 through 1963 when MLK was named “Man of the Year” by Time magazine. At this point, he was seen by most as an established leader of his time. His late career phase extended from the years 1964 through 1968 when he was assassinated.
Language constructs
The constructs examined in this study were operationalized for use with the Diction 5.0 software. Several of the more complex constructs were created by combining the related language subconstructs measured by the Diction 5.0 software. The Power and Affiliation constructs were created to measure language related to a leader’s Power and Affiliation motives and were based on Winter’s (1993) scoring of imagery type (see Appendix C). The specific terms used in the current study to measure the Power rhetoric construct consisted of the Diction 5.0 measures of Self-reference, Inspiration, Aggression, and Accomplishment, and subtracting Passivity language.
The Affiliation rhetoric construct consisted of the Diction 5.0 measures for Leveling, Collectives, Praise, and Rapport and subtracting the measures of Diversity, Exclusion, and Liberation, which consists of language that creates divisions among groups of people (see Appendix B for details on these terms).
The Diction 5.0 Optimism construct consisted of the measures of Praise, Satisfaction, and Inspiration and subtracting the language of Blame, Hardship, and Denial. This measure represents “language endorsing some person, group, concept or event or highlighting their positive entailments” (Hart, 2000, p. 34).
Diction 5.0 also includes a measure of Commonality created by adding terms of Centrality, Cooperation, and Rapport and then subtracting words of Diversity, Exclusion, and Liberation. This measure is defined as “language highlighting the agreed upon values of a group and rejecting idiosyncratic modes of engagement” (Hart, 2000, p. 37).
The Activity score was calculated by adding words of Aggression, Accomplishment, Communication, and Motion, and then subtracting Cognitive terms along with words expressing Passivity and Embellishment. Diction 5.0 defines this construct as “language featuring movement, change, the implementation of ideas and the avoidance of inertia” (Hart, 2000, p. 34).
Finally, Diction 5.0 constructed the Embellishment term as a ratio of terms. Embellishment represents “a selective ratio of adjectives to verbs based on Boder’s (1940) conception that heavy modification slows down a verbal passage by de-emphasizing human and material action” (Hart, 2000, p. 35).
The measures of Optimism, Commonality, Activity, and Embellishment are internal to the Diction 5.0, thereby allowing comparisons across studies using this software. Although most of the calculated constructs used for analysis were built into the Diction 5.0 software, the Power and Affiliation scores were constructed by the researchers for use in the current study. These measures used subcategories already in existence in the software, allowing for reliable comparisons across the two leaders. All measures used in the calculations above are internal to the Diction 5.0 software and, unless otherwise noted above, represent single measures rather than combinations of measures. For example, Self-reference measures the frequency of first person references such as I, me, and mine (Hart, 2000). This single measure was used in combination with other single measures to produce the Power language as noted earlier (See Appendix B for definitions and examples of language constructs).
Results
The means and standard deviations for each of the constructs used in the present study are listed in Table 1. Per 500 word segment of speech and combining the speeches of Hitler and MLK, the most frequently used terms were those relating to Commonality (M = 50.76, SD = 10.53), Optimism (M = 49.00, SD = 2.64), and Activity (M = 48.87, SD = 3.90). The least frequent terms used were those of Embellishment (M = 0.97, SD = 1.61) and Diversity (M = 1.45, SD = 1.69).
Means and Standard Deviations for Leadership Rhetoric Measures
In addition, Table 2 shows the intercorrelations between the single measures used in the analysis of Power rhetoric. For the five single measures, a significant positive correlation was found between Aggression and Accomplishment.
Intercorrelations for Power Subconstructs
p < .05. **p < .01.
Table 3 illustrates the intercorrelations of the single measures used to develop the construct of Affiliation. The results suggest two significant positive correlations between Leveling (or words that ignore individual differences) and Rapport terms (or words describing attitudinal similarities among groups of people) and between Rapport and Cooperation terms.
Intercorrelations for Affiliation Subconstructs
p < .05. **p < .01.
Finally, the intercorrelations for the single measures of Optimism are shown in Table 4. These single measures had several significant correlations. Terms of Praise were significantly positively correlated with words expressing Satisfaction. Perhaps not surprisingly, words of Blame were significantly positively correlated with terms of Hardship and Denial. Interestingly, words of Inspiration also had a significant and positive correlation with terms of Blame as well as terms of Denial.
Intercorrelations for Optimism Subconstructs
p < .05. **p < .01.
The first hypothesis suggested that Hitler would score significantly higher than MLK on language linked to Power. This was analyzed using a t-test comparing the Power construct in the overall speeches from Hitler and MLK. The results indicate that when comparing the two leaders, Hitler used significantly more Power rhetoric than MLK, t = 2.20, p < .05, thereby supporting the hypothesis. The Power language was further deconstructed into the single measures of Self-reference, Inspiration, Aggression, Accomplishment, and Passivity language. The results for Self-reference and Inspiration showed no significant difference between the two leaders. The analysis did reveal, however, that Hitler used significantly more Aggressive language, t = 6.20, p < .01, and more language relating to Accomplishments, t = 4.20, p < .01, than MLK. Not surprisingly, Hitler also used fewer Passivity terms when compared with MLK, t = −2.20, p < .05.
In contrast, Hypothesis 1b proposed that MLK would score higher on Affiliation terms when compared with Hitler. The results of a t test indicated that overall, there is no statistically significant difference between the leaders. The Affiliation language was deconstructed into its single measures of Leveling, Collectives, Praise, Rapport, Diversity, Exclusion, and Liberation terms (for explanation of the terms, see Appendix B). There were significant differences found in three of these subcategories. Language indicating Familiarity significantly differed between the leaders but not in the direction expected, t = 2.11, p < .05; Hitler (M = 137.45) was found to be higher on Familiarity terms than MLK (M = 127.76). Significant differences were also seen between the two leaders in Diversity terms, which were subtracted from the total in calculating the overall Affiliation score, t = 4.64, p < .01. For Diversity terms, Hitler scored higher (M = 1.74) when compared with MLK (M = .59). The final significant difference was seen in Exclusion terms, which were also subtracted from the total Affiliation score, t = 2.36, p < .05. Similar to the Diversity language, Hitler (M = 1.98) was also higher on this language when compared with MLK (M = 1.40). Because Diversity and Exclusion terms were subtracted from the total for Affiliation, these results provide partial support for Hypothesis 1b.
The second set of hypotheses relate to changes in rhetoric over time for the two leaders. It was hypothesized that Hitler would increase his use of Power terms over the course of his political career. To analyze differences for Hitler between his early career phase, midcareer phase, and late career phase, an ANOVA was conducted and significant differences were found between his use of Power terms over time, F = 4.81, p < .05. Further analysis using Tukey’s HSD revealed that Hitler used significantly less Power language in his early career phase (M = 21.91) when compared with his midcareer phase (M = 32.12) and late career phase (M = 33.54), thereby supporting Hypothesis 2a. Once again, the Power score was deconstructed into its subcategories for further analysis. Self-reference terms were significantly different depending on Hitler’s career phase, F = 4.91, p < .05, where Hitler used less Self-reference terms in his early career phase (M = 2.87) when compared with his midcareer phase (M = 11.05) and late career phase (M = 11.40). Hitler’s Inspirational language also differed depending on his career phase, F = 3.35, p < .05. Hitler used the most Inspirational language in his midcareer phase (M = 8.28) when compared with his early career phase (M = 6.85) and late career phase (M = 4.60). The final single measure for Power with significant results depending on career phase was Aggressive terms, F = 8.42, where Hitler’s Aggressive language increased over time with a significant increase in his late career phase (M = 11.98) in comparison with his early career phase (M = 6.93) and midcareer phase (M = 6.95).
A post hoc regression analysis examined whether the audience played a role in Hitler’s use of Power rhetoric beyond the influence of career phase. The audience was categorized into four groups: the public, government officials, the military, and others. The results suggested that audience did not play a significant role in the purposeful use of Power language for Hitler. Although not statistically significant, Hitler used the most Power language with the military (M = 37.26) and other groups (M = 42.33), followed by his government officials (M = 31.85) and the least Power language with the public audience (M = 27.24). For MLK, neither career phase nor audience made a significant difference in his use of Power terms.
In contrast to Hitler’s use of Power language, it was hypothesized that MLK would remain consistent in his use of Affiliation terms throughout his leadership career. An ANOVA of his speeches supported this hypothesis. Although MLK’s Affiliation language varied somewhat over time, there was no statistically significant difference between his early career phase (M = 152.70), midcareer phase (M = 155.15), and late career phase (M = 145.84). Similarly, Hitler’s Affiliation terms were not significantly different based on either career phase or audience; however, he did use the most Affiliation terms with his government (M = 30.99) and military (M = 22.26) audiences in comparison with the public (M = 19.21) and other (M = 14.73) audiences.
In examining the leaders’ early career phases, it was hypothesized that both leaders would use more language of Commonality, Blame, Hardship, and lower Self-reference terms than after their careers were more established. Overall, this hypothesis was only partially supported in our analysis. The language that showed significant differences over Hitler’s career was his use of Self-reference and Hardship terms. As reported earlier, Hitler used significantly less Self-reference terms in his early career stage in comparison with his midcareer phase and late career phase, F = 4.91, p < .05, thereby providing only partial support for Hypothesis 2c. Hitler also used significantly more Hardship terms, F = 3.75, p < .05, in his late career phase (M = 7.24) than in his early career phase (M = 5.89) or midcareer phase (M = 5.04).
A post hoc analyses of the early career phases of both leaders suggested that even in the initial stages of building their constituent base, their language choice presented interesting results. In comparing the two leaders in their early career, they did not significantly differ in their use of Power language; however, when examining their total careers, they did significantly differ, as reported earlier. Self-reference terms also showed a significant difference early in the leaders’ careers, t = 3.06, p < .01, with MLK using more such terms than Hitler. No significant difference was seen, however, when comparing the two leaders over the span of their careers.
During midcareer phase, when both leaders tried to persuade their followers to embrace their proposed change agendas, it was hypothesized that the leaders would use less terms of Ambivalence and more Concrete and Insistence language. Using an ANOVA to test career phase differences in Ambivalence, Concreteness, and Insistence, no statistically significant differences were found for either leader. This does not provide support for Hypothesis 2d.
In the leaders’ late career phases, it was proposed that they would rely more on Activity and Inspirational language when compared with their early career phase and midcareer phase. For Hitler, his Activity language overall showed no significant difference based on his career phase. When his Activity score was broken into its separate subcategories of Aggression, Accomplishment, Communication, Motion, Cognitive, Passivity, and Embellishment terms, the only statistically significant difference emerged in his Aggressive language, F = 8.40, p < .01. As reported earlier, Hitler used significantly more Aggressive language in his late career phase (M = 11.98) when compared with his early career phase (M = 6.93) and midcareer phase (M = 6.95). This provides only partial support for Hypothesis 2e. Hitler did show a significant difference in his terms of Inspiration over his career span, F = 3.35, p < .05. The difference was not, however, in the direction indicated by Hypothesis 2e. As reported earlier, Hitler used the most Inspirational terms in his midcareer phase (M = 8.28) when compared with his early career phase (M = 6.85) and late career phase (M = 4.60). This does not support the proposed hypothesis. MLK showed no statistically significant differences based on career phase for either his Activity language—or any of its subgroups—or in his use of Inspirational terms. This does not support Hypothesis 2e.
In examining the rhetoric of Hitler and MLK with regard to their responses to perceived crises, it was proposed that Hitler would be lower on Optimistic language and higher on Aggressive and Hardship terms when compared with MLK. The results suggest that the leaders do differ significantly in their language of Optimism, t = 2.72, p < .01, with MLK higher in Optimism terms compared with Hitler. This supports Hypothesis 3a. Further analysis deconstructed the Optimism terms into their subconstructs of Praise, Satisfaction, Inspiration, Blame, Hardship, and Denial. Only the subconstruct of Satisfaction showed significant differences between the two leaders, t = 3.69, p < .01, with MLK (M = 5.07) using significantly more terms of Satisfaction than Hitler (M = 3.00).
Hypothesis 3b examined the language of Aggression and Hardship and proposed that Hitler would be higher on Aggression and Hardship terms when compared with MLK. As reported earlier, the t-test results support that Hitler was significantly higher on Aggressive language, t = 6.20, p < .01, than MLK. This supports Hypothesis 3b. With regard to Hardship language, there was no significant difference between the two leaders; this result did not support Hypothesis 3b.
In sum, the results were mixed with some hypotheses supported, whereas others were partially supported or not supported at all. For Hitler, his scores on Power, Aggression, Accomplishment, Familiarity, Diversity, and Exclusion were significantly higher than those for MLK. The language of his speeches changed over time with increasing use of Power and Self-reference terms as his career progressed. He used the most Inspirational language in his midcareer. In his later career, Hitler used his most Aggressive terms.
The results for MLK present a different language pattern compared with Hitler. For MLK, he used significantly more Passivity language and more terms of Optimism and Satisfaction than did Hitler. He also showed no significant change in his language over time or depending on his audience. Neither Hitler nor MLK significantly changed their terms of Affiliation over time (see Table 5 for hypotheses results summary).
Hypotheses Results Summary Table
Note: MLK = Martin Luther King Jr.
Discussion
As the neo-charismatic perspective recognizes the complexity of behaviors, traits, and situational factors, this study contributes a small but important piece to the study of charisma by examining language choices of two charismatic leaders. This study explored language differences between a representative toxic leader, Adolf Hitler, and a representative moral leader, MLK. Our results provide partial support for Winter’s model of Cyclical Variation in Motives and Social Events as applied to individual leaders (Winter, 1993). We also found only limited support for Seyranian and Bligh’s (2008) framework for social change as applied to our leaders. Arguably, a strength of our study lies in the application of charismatic leadership theory beyond the usual samples of U.S. presidents. Language relating to power orientation, career phase, and response to crisis was examined to present a rich picture of the comparison of these two charismatic leaders. With their differing motives and agendas, it was hoped that contrasting the language of these two charismatic leaders would uncover variation in their patterns of rhetoric to distinguish between a toxic and a moral leader. Although only a preliminary analysis of two cases, the results contribute to the current theoretical perspectives and suggest that further study of how language reveals leaders’ true intentions is warranted.
Power and Affiliation Results
The differing use of various terms between Hitler and MLK presented few surprises. Based on common knowledge and the historical accounts of these two leaders, Hitler would be expected to use more language of Power, Aggression, Accomplishment, Familiarity, Diversity, and Exclusion when compared with MLK. These results support Winter’s theory of Cyclical Variation in Motives and Social Events, which suggested that those leaders with higher power motives are more likely to promote war (Winter, 1993). Hitler’s words reflect the ideals of his personal power motivation by emphasizing social dominance, personal triumph, resistance, and task completion. He relied on language of camaraderie to draw in his followers and to maintain distance from his enemies by using words that describe others as differing from the norm as well as using terms of social isolation.
In a similar vein, the historical record of MLK would suggest that his ideology would also play out in his rhetoric to his constituents. The results suggesting that his speeches are higher in Passivity, Optimistic, and Satisfaction terms when compared with Hitler are predictable by those with only a cursory knowledge of American history. MLK’s strong grounding in nonviolent civil disobedience and his pronounced Christian background resulted in expressions of passive resistance along with confidence and hope for a better future.
One interesting finding was the lack of difference overall between the two leaders on Self-reference terms. Galvin, Waldman, and Balthazard (2010) suggested that narcissistic leaders frame their communications in a “self-absorbed” way and “tend toward an ‘I’ perspective” (p. 514). Following this logic, we would expect Hitler to be higher on Self-reference terms than MLK. These researchers further suggested that more socialized leaders use terms that are more inclusive with a “we” orientation (Galvin et al., 2010). The current study does not support this distinction. On the contrary, our results seem to support a study examining the rhetoric of Gandhi, which suggested that his language contained more Self-reference terms than is seen in the norms of charismatic U.S. presidents or social movement leaders (Bligh & Robinson, 2010). A clear explanation for the current study’s finding, therefore, remains unclear.
These preliminary results may suggest differences in the transparency of motives between those with socialized power and those with personalized power. Hitler appears to have used language early in his career to obscure his true power-seeking motives, whereas MLK appears to have used language to overtly reveal his altruistic path, with the exception of the lack of differences in Self-reference terms. Galvin et al. (2010) suggested that socialized charismatic leadership is associated with setting a moral tone and pursuing the best interests of the collective followers. Because MLK’s goal was grounded in the morality of the Civil Rights movement, his language remained low in Power terms and his path of nonviolence called for low levels of Aggressive language, which was sustained throughout his career.
Although the terms used in the speeches for Hitler and MLK partially played out as predicted in the results, other findings suggest that the two leaders’ speeches differed in other distinctive ways. For example, Hitler’s language shifted in significant ways over time. In his early career stage, when beginning to build his leadership base, he used significantly less language of Power, Aggression, and Self-reference. Perhaps Hitler recognized the impact such language would have on his potential followers. Not wanting to scare away his future power base, Hitler may have intentionally toned down his rhetoric until he had gained such power that it no longer required him to hide his true agenda. This supports Seyranian and Bligh’s (2008) theory, suggesting that early in their careers, charismatic leaders will use language that increases their affinity with their followers.
In his midcareer, as Hitler’s quest for world domination became a centerpiece of his government, he relied more heavily on Inspirational language perhaps to solidify his support and build his vision. Hitler recognized the strength of strong rhetoric as exemplified by his quote at the beginning of this article. It may therefore be assumed that Hitler carefully constructed his speeches to convey his intended message in the most persuasive terms. The results showing his Power and Aggressive language building over time may suggest that toxic leaders are able to mask their orientation early on but once a strong follower base is established, their true orientation plays out in their language.
A particularly intriguing finding was seen in the lack of significant differences in Affiliation language between the two leaders. This suggests that both leaders recognized the importance of using language that builds bridges between themselves and their followers. Hitler used more language of Familiarity when speaking with his audiences, perhaps to connect to the Germans on a more personal level. In 1933, Hitler pronounced, “We are all proud that through God’s powerful aid, we have become once more true Germans” (http://www.allgreatquotes.com). He combined that with the more negative terms of Diversity and Exclusion perhaps to unite his people against a common fear. For example, Hitler declared, “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord” (http://thinkexist.com). As a personalized charismatic leader, research would suggest that Hitler sought self-serving agendas that tied his followers’ emotions to a bold vision of the future (Galvin et al., 2010). In Hitler’s own words, “I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few” (http://www.brainyquote.com). Although these results do not support Winter’s (1993) theory that we should see higher Affiliation terms in leaders who have a propensity for peace, the results mirror Winter’s own results, which suggests that further theoretical conceptualization into Affiliation language is needed to understand the nuances of this motive.
Language Changes Over Time
In our quest for red flags that distinguish toxic leaders from those with more moral moorings, this study suggests that we look for changes in rhetoric over time. It may be more difficult to distinguish between toxic and moral leaders early in their careers. This is a disturbing result for those deciding whether to support particular leaders as early on their motives may not be made clear through their speeches. This was illustrated in the present study as no significant differences resulted in Power language between Hitler and MLK early in their careers. Hitler, however, was higher in terms of Aggression and Accomplishment terms early in his career, suggesting that we should pay attention to a leader’s use of such language. Also, MLK was higher in Optimism and Passivity terms, even in his early career, when compared with Hitler.
The results for Self-reference terms over time are also intriguing. Early in his career, MLK used significantly more language referring to himself than did Hitler. These provocative results challenge the general wisdom that leaders who use personalized power will talk more about themselves than leaders utilizing socialized power. An example of such language from MLK is seen in the following quote:
I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go to the mountain. And I’ve looked over, and I’ve seen the promised land! I may not get there with you, but I want you to know that tonight that we as a people will get to the promised land. (http://www.brainyquote.com)
These results support the previous research on Gandhi, another socialized power leader, who used more Self-reference terms than the norms for charismatic leaders. Bligh and Robinson (2010) suggested that such increased use of Self-reference language may have been a result of his Hindu religion and its emphasis on seeking an individualized spiritual path. Our results, however, do not support this conclusion because frequent use of Self-reference terms was also seen with MLK, who possessed a strong Christian influence. Perhaps the religious inspiration alone accounts for the results or alternately, the impact Gandhi had on MLK’s doctrine prompted the Self-reference terms. Further studies exploring a leader’s use of Self-reference terms may shed additional light on this finding.
On a darker note, these findings also suggest that we cannot use the specific language of speeches to ascertain the leader’s motives, at least in the two leaders examined in this study. Unfortunately, such findings illustrate that if we base our leadership analysis strictly on language, we cannot distinguish between toxic and moral leaders until the latter stages of their careers. At that point, the social harm by such leaders may already be evident, as was the case with Hitler.
Limitations
Although this study has many strengths, it is not without important limitations to keep in mind when interpreting the results. The largest limitation is that only two leaders are represented so drawing any conclusions about how these results will play out with other leaders can only be determined with further research. Perhaps there are other leaders more representative of toxic and moral leaders than the two selected for the current study. Another important limitation is that each leader represents a complex matrix of personality, culture, social, and historical contexts, all of which we have not been examined as part of this study. For example, Hitler’s words were translated from German to English so perhaps the translation and cultural differences impacted the results. Further study is needed in a cross-cultural context to clarify what influence if any cultural differences in addition to language make on charismatic rhetoric. A strength of this study, however, rests with its impetus to prompt further examination of language and leadership, particularly with the improvement in content analysis software.
Arguably, the separation between their early career, midcareer, and late career could have been divided differently based on other criteria. As seen with many charismatic leaders through history, these leaders’ careers were cut short either by their own hands or through an assassin’s bullet. What this study categorized as their late careers, therefore, may not have been seen as such by these two leaders. Both had survived previous assassination attempts so they may have had some idea that their lives, and thereby their social agendas, had limited time. Although Hitler’s agenda was successfully halted by Germany’s defeat in World War II, MLK’s civil rights battle achieved a measure of success after his death. How much his influence would have been felt had he lived is mere speculation at this point. Moreover, we assume that the leaders wrote their own speeches or at the very least exercised extreme influence over the words used. This study, therefore, represents only preliminary steps in examining through content analysis how leaders use language to persuade followers to support either the individual leader as with Hitler or the social cause as with MLK. Overall, no definitive answers are forthcoming and we are left with more questions than answers.
Future Research
The results of this study present at least two paths for future exploration. The first is further examination of toxic leaders. This study only examined a single toxic leader, and therefore, it is unclear whether the results would generalize to the larger field of toxic leaders such as Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. Strengthening the link between language and the pathology behind this type of leader presents many interesting research avenues. Our results suggest that language alone does not reveal such leaders’ motives and so the search for clues as to which leaders we should trust remains unanswered. The second path of inquiry is further explanation of the link between language and socialized power leaders such as Nelson Mandela and the Dali Lama. The current study only examined the language of MLK, so generalizing to other moral leaders must be carefully considered. The interesting finding that MLK and Gandhi are high in self-referent language also begs further explanation.
Beyond these two paths, the role of speech writers in crafting language and how leaders are influenced by their surroundings to veer from their planned speech are worth further inquiry. We have yet to fully understand how intention, perspective, consciousness, and personality play out in the language of leadership. The perspective of followers’ reactions to differing types of language by their leaders may also give important insights into the leadership process. Researchers must therefore continue probing the factors that influence our selection of leaders and discern what “red flags” are cause for concern.
In conclusion, perhaps our most important task, as global citizens, is the selection of leaders who will morally propel us into the next decade. This daunting undertaking requires us to utilize all knowledge at our disposal. Because leadership and rhetoric are so intertwined, studies that further examine this link become imperative and drive leadership theory and practical application. As such, we hope this initial step exploring the similarities and differences between the speeches of Adolf Hitler and MLK will prompt careful examination of those who seek our support and propel our theoretical groundings in leadership research forward. As research beyond U.S. presidents expands our perspectives into the moral and toxic side of leadership, this knowledge can help guide our choices of future leaders.
Footnotes
Appendix A
Martin Luther King Jr.’s Speeches
| Year | Date | Words | Audience | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1954 | 2/28/1954 | 569 | Second Baptist Church |
| 2 | 1955 | 12/5/1955 | 1440 | Holt Street Baptist Church |
| 3 | 1956 | 11/4/1956 | 2822 | Commission on Ecumenical Missions and Relations |
| 4 | 1957 | 4/10/1957 | 5827 | Address at Freedom Rally |
| 5 | 1957 | 4/7/1957 | 7050 | Dexter Avenue Baptist Church |
| 6 | 1957 | 5/17/1957 | 2697 | Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom |
| 7 | 1957 | 11/17/1957 | 5556 | Dexter Avenue Baptist Church |
| 8 | 1959 | 3/9/1959 | 733 | Other |
| 9 | 1963 | 6/23/1963 | 3207 | Public |
| 10 | 1963 | 8/28/1963 | 1578 | Public |
| 11 | 1963 | 9/18/1963 | 1048 | Sixth Avenue Baptist Church |
| 12 | 1964 | 12/10/1964 | 1149 | Noble Audience |
| 13 | 1965 | 3/25/1965 | 3274 | Public |
| 14 | 1965 | 7/4/1965 | 4447 | Ebenezer Baptist Church |
| 15 | 1966 | 6/5/1966 | 2883 | Ebenezer Baptist Church |
| 16 | 1967 | 4/4/1967 | 6716 | Meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned |
| 17 | 1967 | 4/9/1967 | 5370 | New Covenant Baptist Church |
| 18 | 1967 | 8/16/1967 | 7409 | Southern Christian Leadership Conference |
| 19 | 1967 | 8/27/1967 | 5797 | Mount Pisgah Missionary Baptist Church |
| 20 | 1968 | 2/4/1968 | 4883 | Ebenezer Baptist Church |
| 21 | 1968 | 3/3/1968 | 2486 | Ebenezer Baptist Church |
| 22 | 1968 | 4/3/1968 | 4183 | Memphis, Tennessee |
Appendix B
DICTION 5.0 Constructs
| Construct | Sample words (not all inclusive) |
|---|---|
| Accomplishment | Task completion (establish, influence, and proceed), Organized human behavior (motivated and influence), Modes of expansion (grow, increase, and generate), General functionality (strengthen and succeed), and Programmatic language (agenda and enacted) |
| Aggression | Physical energy (blast, crash, explode, and collide), Social domination (conquest, attacking, and violation), Goal-directedness (commanded and challenging), Personal triumph (mastered, rambunctious, and pushy), Excess human energy (prod, poke, pound, and shove), Disassembly (dismantle, demolish, overturn, and veto), Resistance (prevent, reduce, defend, and curbed) |
| Ambivalence | Hedges (allegedly and perhaps), Inexactness (vague, approximate, and almost) |
| Blame | Social inappropriateness (naïve), Evil (fascist and malicious), and Denigrations (cruel and illegitimate) |
| Centrality | Indigenous terms (native and innate) and Legitimacy (orthodox and constitutional) |
| Cognitive | Discovery (deliberate and consider), Calculative (analyze and diagnose), Rationalistic (estimate, reasonable, and examine) |
| Collectives | Social groupings (crowd, team, and humanity), Task groups (army, congress, legislature, and staff), Geographical entities (county, world, and republic) |
| Communication | Social interaction (listen and speak) and social purposes (respond and rebuke) |
| Concreteness | Accountancy (finances and wages), Sociological units (Catholics and African American), and Political alignments (Communists and Europeans) |
| Cooperation | Formal work relations (unions and caucus), Informal associations (chum, partner, and cronies), Intimate interactions (friendship and comrade), Neutral interactions (consolidate and mediate), Job-related tasks (network, détente, and exchange), Personal involvement (teamwork and contribute), and Self-denial (public-spirited and self-sacrifice) |
| Denial | Negative contractions (should not and are not), Null sets (nothing and nobody), and Negative functions (not, not, and nay) |
| Diversity | Comparatively neutral (inconsistent and nonconformist), Positive (exceptional, unique, and individualistic), Negative (illegitimate, rabble-rouser, and extremist), and Liability (factionalism, deviancy, and quirky) |
| Exclusion | Seclusion phrased passively (displaced and sequestered), Positively (self-sufficient), Negatively (outlaws and repudiated), Voluntary forces (secede and privacy), Involuntary forces (ostracize and discriminate), and Personality factors (small-mindedness and loneliness) |
| Hardship | Hostile actions (enemies and vices), censurable behavior (betrayal and despots), unsavory political outcomes (injustice and exploitation), and human fears (grief and apprehension) |
| Inspiration | Moral qualities (faith, honesty, self-sacrifice, and virtue), Attractive personal qualities (courage and dedication), and Social and political ideals (patriotism and justice) |
| Leveling | Totalizing terms (everybody, anyone, each, and fully), Adverbs of permanence (always and inevitably), and Resolute adjectives (unconditional and absolute) |
| Liberation | Individual choice (autonomous and open-minded), Rejection of social conventions (radical), Personality factors (eccentric and impetuous), Political forces (liberty, freedom, and emancipation), Dramatic outcomes (exodus and deliverance), and Subdued effects (loosen, disentangle, and outpouring) |
| Motion | Movement (leap and hustle) and Physical Processes (momentum and circulate) |
| Passivity | Compliance (allow, tame, and appeasement), Docility (submit, contented, and sluggish), Cessation (arrested, capitulate, refrain, and yielding), Inertness (backward, immobile, silence, and inhibit), Disinterest (unconcerned, nonchalant, and stoic), and Tranquility (quietly, sleepy, and vacation) |
| Praise | Terms isolating social qualities (dear and delightful), Physical qualities (mighty, handsome, and beautiful), Intellectual qualities (shrewd, bright, and vigilant), Entrepreneurial qualities (successful and conscientious), and Moral qualities (faithful, good, and noble) |
| Rapport | Affinity (congenial, camaraderie and companion), assent (approve, vouched, and warrants), deference (tolerant, willing, and permission), and identity (equivalent, resemble, and consensus) |
| Satisfaction | Positive affective states (passionate and happiness) and Moments of triumph (pride and celebrating) |
| Self-reference | First person references (I, I have, me, mine, and myself) |
Source: Hart (2000).
Appendix C
Power and Affiliation Constructs
| Constructs | Winter’s (1993) motive imagery scoring | Diction 5.0 subconstructs |
|---|---|---|
| Power | Control or influence | Inspiration |
| Forceful actions | Aggression minus Passivity | |
| Concern for reputation | Self-reference, Accomplishment | |
| Affiliation | Positive feelings toward others | Praise |
| Establishing friendly relationships | Rapport | |
| Friendly relations with groups | Leveling, Collectives, minus Exclusion, Liberation, Diversity |
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Banta Center for Business, Ethics, and Society for its financial support for this study.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by The Banta Center for Business, Ethics, and Society.