Attributions of leaders’ charisma increase after their death: The mediating role of identity leadership and identity fusion

Abstract

In the present research, we replicate previous research showing that death increases attributions of a leader’s charisma and that this is mediated by followers’ perceptions of a connection between the leader and their group (identity fusion). We also extend previous research by including identity leadership as a further mediator, examining the importance of a leaders’ perceived ability to strengthen the identity of the group they lead. Predictions were tested in the unique context of the death of two former German chancellors (Helmut Schmidt, Helmut Kohl) with participants (n = 233) evaluating one of these leaders either before or after their death. Results show that the leaders’ identity leadership, identity fusion, and charisma were perceived to be significantly higher after their death. Analysis also supported the proposed serial mediation model in which condition (alive or dead) impacted charisma via identity leadership and then fusion. Results support claims that charisma is a social attribution.

Keywords

Charisma identity leadership identity fusion leadership death

Leader charisma has fascinated scientists and the general public for decades, yet there are varying perspectives on its underlying nature and source. One prominent view sees leader charisma as a characteristic that is inherent in the leader’s person, akin to other properties such as his or her height, voice, rhetorical style, or personality. This view speaks to Max Weber’s (1925: 241) seminal definition of charisma as “a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is considered extraordinary and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities.”

More recently, however, researchers have argued that leader charisma does not simply inhere in a leader’s objective characteristics but is instead an attribution or inference made by followers (e.g., Reh et al., 2017). Indeed, researchers have argued that charisma is a social attribution or inference, and have proposed various factors that determine such inference processes. For instance, Ladkin (2006) proposed a relational perspective in which charisma is seen to arise from a relational encounter between leader and followers, rather than being inherently located within the leader him or herself.

Supporting the idea that charisma is a social inference, researchers have also examined the relationship between perception of leaders’ charisma and their death. For example, Steffens et al. (2017) provide evidence that a leader’s charisma tends to increase after his or her death. In one of their experimental studies the leader’s behavior was held constant (all that varied was whether they were believed to be dead or alive), and hence postmortem increases in charisma could not be explained by the leader’s personal character but rather needed to be seen as arising from a social attribution on the part of perceivers. Indeed, this is also flagged in the reference to the leader being “considered” and “treated” in the above quotation from Weber.

Similarly, Allison and Goethals (2008) proposed that events before or after (vs. during) a leader’s tenure impact on their inspirational qualities. More specifically, they identify three types of individual—the underdog, the dead, and the martyr—who tend to be seen as inspirational leaders, and who win emotional support and sympathy from their followers as a result. More specifically, underdog leaders arouse sympathy by overcoming significant challenges prior their leadership; deceased leaders arouse sympathy through their death which elicits inspiration and reverence; and martyrs arouse sympathy through their noble sacrifice. According to Allison and Goethals (2008), the element of self-sacrifice that is common to all three of these leader types cements a positive legacy for the leader which then becomes part of his or her community’s social identity.

Further evidence for these ideas is provided by Allison et al. (2009) who conducted a series of studies comparing followers’ responses to dead and living leaders. Their findings indicated that respondents had a death-positive bias, such that they had more favorable impressions of dead leaders than of those who were alive (across domains of sports, politics and entertainment). Even though individuals are largely unaware of the influence of the leader’s death on their responses to them (Allison et al., 2009), this research provides clear evidence of the way in which death can play a powerful role in shaping followers’ evaluations of their leaders.

In the present research, we seek to advance our understanding of the nature and origins of leader charisma. We do this, first, by replicating findings regarding the impact of a person’s death on observers’ inferences of their charisma (Steffens et al., 2017). Here, though, we do this in the context of a naturally occurring experiment centering on the case of two leaders—namely the former German Chancellors, Helmut Kohl and Helmut Schmitt—who are well known but prior to their death had not been in office for a considerable time. We think it is particularly insightful to examine the death–charisma link in such a context where a leader has not been active for a long time (i.e., so that their record is “fixed”). Second, we extend previous research by investigating more closely the processes that underpin this effect. More specifically, we seek to show that the impact of leaders’ death on their perceived charisma is mediated by perceptions that—through processes of identity leadership and identity fusion—the leader is seen to represent the collective identity of the group they lead more strongly after their death than before.

The death–charisma link

Steffens and colleagues’ (2017) examination of postmortem increase in leader charisma presents a challenge for traditional understandings of charismatic leadership. As intimated above, in an experimental study, these researchers found that participants perceived a (male) scientific leader to be significantly more charismatic when he was believed to be dead rather than alive. Further evidence of the death–charisma link was also provided by an extensive archival analysis that quantified the proportion of items that referred to charisma in news coverage of 48 Heads of State who died while in office during their lifetime and after their death. This analysis (of nearly 2.5m news stories) revealed a more than three-fold post-mortem increase in charisma-referencing news reports.

Reh et al. (2017) provide further support for the suggestion that charisma need not be grounded in the actions of a leader in research which shows that perceptions of charisma can change even in the absence of any behavioral interaction between a leader and his or her followers. According to the embodiment perspective that these researchers propose, a range of situational cues, which are not confined to a leader’s bodily state (e.g., their height), can lead perceivers to make inferences about the characteristics of individuals, including their charisma (see Barsalou, 2008; Kranjec and McDonough, 2011; Lakens, 2014; Niedenthal, 2007). Such evidence provides further support for the claim that leader charisma is a social attribution that is sensitive to, and may be enhanced by, features of the immediate context (Haslam et al., 2001; Meindl, 1995; Shamir et al., 1993), including a leader’s death. For example, Bligh et al.’s (2005) study of charisma in the context of an election showed that perceivers tend to attribute charisma to leaders rather than to external factors (e.g., with challengers being perceived as more charismatic than incumbents). Similar inferences can be drawn from research by Simonton (1994) which examined factors that make particular individuals (i.e., great leaders) stand out from the crowd. Results suggest that while there are many factors that play an important role, the context in which inspirational leaders bring about their legacy is crucial—so that leaders’ eminence is strongly associated with their being in the right place at the right time, and living for a long time. As a result, greatness appears not to stem from the individual alone but from their interaction with the environment, such that “the big act of leadership is the joint product of individual and situation” (Simonton, 1994, p. 403).

In an attempt to explain the underlying mechanism whereby charisma increases after death, Steffens and colleagues (2017) provide evidence that post-mortem increases in leader charisma may reflect the extent to which perceivers see a leader to be fused with their collective identity. More specifically, followers perceive leaders to be more charismatic after their death because the leader’s identity, at that point, is seen to be tied more strongly to a shared identity between the leader and followers (“us”) than to his or her personal identity (“me”). This corresponds to the shift from personal and social identity specified by social identity theory and self-categorization theory (Tajfel, 1978; Turner et al., 1987). However, Steffens and colleagues note that their studies provided only limited support for this assertion, due in part to problems of construct measurement and model specification. This led them to conclude that other processes were almost certainly also at play here.

The mediating roles of identity leadership and identity fusion

In an attempt to replicate previous findings by Steffens and colleagues’ (2017), the present research tests the hypothesis that death increases charisma by increasing group members’ perceptions of their leader’s fusion with the group as a whole. Beyond this, we argue that fusion with the group itself is grounded in followers’ perceptions of the leader as someone who contributes to the collective identity of the group that he or she leads. This point is consistent with the more general tenets of identity leadership—an approach to leadership which argues that a leader’s ability to exert influence over group members flows from his or her capacity to be perceived as representing and advancing a sense of shared social identity (a sense of “us”) within the group (Haslam et al., 2011; Steffens et al., 2014).

Over more than three decades, social identity theory has spearheaded theory building and research on group processes (e.g., Ellemers et al., 2002, 2004; Haslam et al., 2011; Hornsey and Jetten, 2004; Spears et al., 1997). This body of theory and research argues that a person’s social identification with a particular group is an expansion of the self that gives individuals a sense of allegiance to the collective and, through this, a sense belonging and pride (Brewer and Gardner, 1996; Prentice et al., 1994; Postmes et al., 2005; Turner et al., 1994). An awareness that social identification may factor into group members’ acceptance of leaders, thus sets the theoretical context for examining charisma as a social inference. This accords with recent claims by Antonakis et al. (2016) that charisma is a form of leader signaling (see also Thibault, 2004). That is, individuals must first be recognized as leaders of their group before followers see their contribution and presence (i.e., “signaling”) as having charismatic appeal. This is also in line with Popper and Castelnovo’s (2017; Castelnovo et al., 2017) argument that leaders’ various signals of competence (e.g., age, professional experience) translate into perceptions of charisma as a result of leaders being seen as having created collective identity and embedded effective cultural norms and practices.

A second path through which death may enhance a leader’s charisma is the leader’s identity fusion. Identity fusion has been referred to as the “experience or visceral feeling of oneness with a group” (Swan et al., 2012: 1). When individuals become highly fused with a group, their experience of group membership breaks down boundaries between their typically demarcated personal identity (their sense of themselves as unique individuals, “I” and “me”; Turner and Oakes, 1986) and their social identity (their sense of themselves as members of a social group; e.g., “me, a scientist,” “I, an American”). Here, the union of personal and social identity does not compromise either the personal or social self, but instead allows for the preservation of dual identities (see Hewstone and Brown, 1986). Moreover, as individuals feel they can bring their “whole” self to the group, their connectedness to the group creates an extremely strong sense of affiliation with group members and encourages perceptions of reciprocal allegiance (Swann et al., 2012; Swann and Buhrmester, 2015).

Although the evolution of identity fusion theory has been predominantly shaped by the motivation to understand pro-group behavior, such as laying down one’s life for others (Swann and Buhrmester, 2015), research on the death–charisma link suggests that this phenomenon may also be realized within the leader–follower relationship. More specifically, evidence of postmortem increases in leader charisma suggests that leaders’ attributions of charisma can flow, at least in part, from followers’ evaluation of the leaders’ fusion to the group. Indeed, precisely because fusion can lead people to sacrifice themselves for their group, the fact that a person has died for the group can lead to the inference that they were fused to it. However, consistent with the logic of identity leadership, this perception that the leader is fused with a group may itself arise from recognition that the leader has cultivated and embedded a sense of shared social identity (Platow et al., 2006; see also Haslam et al., 2011; Steffens et al., 2014; van Knippenberg, 2011).

Summary and hypotheses

The present research aims to make two important contributions to the literature on leadership, charisma, and identity. First, it extends our understanding of the nature of charisma. In contrast to previous research which has studied this largely as a characteristic of a given leader (Antonakis et al., 2016) we conceptualize charisma as an attribution made by perceivers in the context of their relationship with that leader at a given moment in time (Meindl, 1995; Shamir et al., 1993). Second, we extend the literature that has argued that leadership is a group process (Haslam et al., 2011) by explaining why a leader’s charisma increases after their death. Specifically, we will explore whether perceptions of identity leadership, and in turn, identity fusion, increase after the leaders’ death, and whether this increase explains the post-mortem increase in their charisma.

These ideas can be formalized in the following hypotheses:
H1. Perceptions of leaders’ charisma will increase following their death.

H2. The impact of leaders’ death on their perceived charisma (as predicted by H1) will be mediated by identity leadership and identity fusion. More specifically, when they are dead, leaders will be regarded as having cultivated a stronger sense of collective identity in the group than was the case when they were alive. This, in turn, will be related to them being seen as more strongly fused with the collective they represented and this, finally, will be positively related to their perceived charisma.
To test these hypotheses, we conducted a between-subjects survey study asking German participants to evaluate a former German Chancellor—either Helmut Schmidt (Chancellor 1974–1982), or Helmut Kohl (Chancellor 1982–1998). This involved responding to scales assessing the leaders’ perceived charisma, identity leadership, and identity fusion with Germany either before or after the leader’s death.

Methodology

Participants and design

We recruited 241 German participants through an online survey that was distributed among the first author’s networks during three weeks in May/June 2015 for both Helmut Schmidt and Helmut Kohl and in the three weeks following Helmut Schmidt’s death on 10 November, 2015 and Helmut Kohl’s death on 16 June, 2017, respectively. We have followed American Psychological Association's ethical guidelines in conducting our research and informed consent was obtained from all participants.

We used the data from 233 participants who completed all parts of the survey (58 completed the survey concerning Schmidt before his death and 76 who did so after he had died, 33 who completed the survey concerning Kohl before his death and 66 who did so after he had died). Participants were on average 29.6 years old (SD = 26.66) and 60.1% were women. We also asked participants which political party they would vote for at the next federal election and found a good mix of political orientation with 51.5% supporting more conservative parties (Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Christian Social Democrats (CSU), Free Democratic Party (FDP), Alternative for Germany (AFD)) and 48.5% more liberal/left wing parties (Social Democratic Party (SPD), green party (Die Grünen) and the left wing party (Die Linke)). The dataset generated and analyzed during the current study is available in the Open Science Framework repository at osf.io/69tdv/.

Procedure and measures

The study had a between-subject design which invited participants before and after the death of Helmut Schmidt or Helmut Kohl to complete a survey study about “People’s opinions about former German Chancellors.” They then read a short biography of either Helmut Schmidt or Helmut Kohl. The biography provided some basic information about the two politicians’ achievements and positions. In the survey that was administered after the leader’s death, we added one line stating that this person had recently passed away, including the exact date of their death. As an example, for Helmut Kohl the biography stated: “Helmut Kohl (born 3 April 1930) is a former German politician of the CDU. From 1969 to 1976 he served as prime minister of Rhineland-Palatinate and from 1982 to 1998 he was the 6th Chancellor of Germany. With 16 years in that office, he is the longest standing Chancellor in recent German history. In addition, he was also Chair of the CDU from 1973 to 1998 and after this, he was honorary chair.”

In the version after his death, we stated that “Helmut Kohl died on 16 June 2017 at the age of 87.”

After reading the biography, participants responded on Likert scales ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (completely) to the following measures before providing demographic data and being debriefed.

Charisma. We used the same three items to measure the target person’s charisma as Steffens et al. (2017; α = .81) (Steffens et al., 2017). These were selected from the eight-item Attribution of Leader Charisma Scale (ALCS) developed by Platow and colleagues (2006). These items are conceptually equivalent to the construct that is captured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Avolio and Bass, 2004) but, unlike the MLQ, the scales are freely available for research purposes. The items asked whether this politician “had a compelling vision for the future”; “was an inspiring person”; “had a sense of mission.”

Fusion with the group (Germany). Participants provided ratings of the degree to which the target person was seen to be connected (i.e., “fused”) with the group (Germany) using six items from the Identity Fusion Scale (α = .91; Gómez et al., 2011). This politician “had a deep emotional bond with Germany”; “was one with Germany”; felt immersed in his country”; “did more for his country as other Germans would do”; “was strong because of his country”; “made Germany strong”).

Identity leadership. Participants provided ratings of the degree to which the target person was seen to act as identity leader using the four-item short version of the Identity Leadership Inventory developed by Steffens et al. (2014; α = .85; This politician “was a model member of Germany”; “acted as a champion for Germany”; “created a sense of cohesion within Germany”; and “created structures that were useful for Germans”).

Results

Preliminary analyses

Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations are presented in Table 1. We conducted confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) of a model (Model A) with the three charisma items, the four identity leadership items and the six fusion items loading on three separate factors to examine its fit with the data. We also compared this model to two alternative models: a one-factor model (Model B) that combined all items in a single undifferentiated factor and a two-factor model (Model C) in which the items assessing the two constructs that were most strongly correlated (identity leadership and identity fusion) were combined in a single factor. We examined these alternative models by inspecting the overall chi-square (χ²) and the fit indices standardized root mean square residuals (SRMR), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and comparative fit index (CFI; Hooper et al., 2008) as well as by conducting a chi-square difference test (Δχ²) to examine whether Model A fits the data better than the alternative models. Because preliminary analyses indicated that we could not assume normal distribution of the responses to items, we used the Satorra–Bentler corrected chi-square model test.

Table 1.
Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations between variables.

Variable M SD 1. 2. 3. 4.

1. Condition (1 = alive, 2 = dead) 1.62 0.49 –

2. Identity leadership 4.36 1.14 .12 .85

2. Fusion with Germany 4.35 1.12 .18* .78 .91

3. Charisma 4.35 1.11 .11 .72 .68** .81

Note: N = 233; *p < .05, **p < .01. Condition: Kohl/Schmidt alive versus dead coded as 1 and 2, respectively. Cronbach alphas in the diagonal.

Overall, results revealed that Model A had an acceptable fit to the data (χ² = 248.28, df = 62, CFI = .905, RMSEA = .114, 90%CIs [.099, .129], SRMR = .057), while Model B had a marginal fit (χ² = 305.33, df = 65, CFI = .878, RMSEA = .126, 90%CIs [.112, .140], SRMR = .063) and Model C had a moderate-to-marginal fit to the data (χ² = 279.20, df = 64, CFI = .891, RMSEA = .120, 90%CIs [.106, .135], SRMR = .060). Chi-square difference tests indicated that Model A had significantly better fit to the data than both Model B (Δχ² = 57.05, df = 3, p < .001) and Model C (Δχ² = 26.13, df = 1, p < .001).

Main analyses

We conducted a series of analyses of variance (ANOVAs) to assess the effects of the (naturally occurring) experimental condition (alive vs. dead leader) on the dependent variables identity leadership, fusion with the group (Germany), and charisma, while controlling for the individual leader (Schmidt vs. Kohl) as a second factor¹ when assessing the impact of death on each dependent measure.²

Charisma

Consistent with H1, analysis of variance revealed a significant effect of death on charisma, F(1, 232) = 7.51, p = .007, η² = .032, Cohen’s d = .36. Participants perceived the leader to be more charismatic when he was dead (M = 4.41, SE = .09, 95%CIs [4.25, 4.58]) than when he was alive (M = 4.03, SE = .11, 95%CIs [3.82, 4.25]). The effect of the leader factor was also significant F(1, 232) = 50.00, p = .001, η² = .179, Cohen’s d = .93 (with Schmidt being rated as more charismatic than Kohl, Ms = 4.73, 3.83, respectively). There was no interaction between condition and leader F(1, 232) = 2.39, p = .12, η² = .01, Cohen’s d = .02.

Identity leadership

Consistent with H2, analysis of variance revealed a significant effect of death on identity leadership, F(1, 232) = 5.87, p = .016, η² = .025, Cohen’s d = .32. Participants regarded the leader as having cultivated a stronger collective identity (a sense of “we”) when that leader was dead (M = 4.44, SE = .09, 95%CIs [4.26, 4.61]) than when he was alive (M = 4.08, SE = .12, 95%CIs [3.85, 4.31]). The effect of the factor leader was also significant F(1, 232) = 30.58, p = .001, η² = .118, Cohen’s d = .73 (with Schmidt being rated as higher on identity leadership with M = 4.69 than Kohl with M = 3.91). Again, there was no interaction between condition and leader F(1, 232) = 0.1, p = .92, η² = .00, Cohen’s d = .00.

Fusion with the group

Also consistent with H2, analysis of variance revealed a significant effect of leaders’ death on their perceived fusion with the group (Germany), F(1, 232) = 14.54, p = .001, η² = .06, Cohen’s d = .51. Participants regarded the leader to be more fused with the group after he was dead (M = 4.44, SE = .09, 95%CIs [4.27, 4.62]) than when he was alive (M = 3.94, SE = .11, 95%CIs [3.71, 4.17]). The effect of the factor leader was also significant F(1, 232) = 31.59, p = .001, η² = .121, Cohen’s d = .74 (with Schmidt being rated as higher on fusion with M = 4.64 than Kohl with M = 3.95). There was also a marginally significant interaction between condition and leader F(1, 232) = 3.60, p = .06, η² = .015, Cohen’s d = .25.

Indirect effect

To provide a full test of H2, we explored the mediational roles of identity leadership and fusion with the group on the relationship between death and perceived charisma. To assess the indirect pathways, we conducted bias-corrected bootstrapping with 5000 resamples using PROCESS (Model 6; Hayes, 2013) with leader (Schmidt/Kohl) as covariate. Supporting H2, and as shown in Figure 1, this analysis revealed an indirect effect of leaders’ death on charisma through perceptions of identity leadership and fusion with the group, γ = .07, SE = .037, 95%CIs [.01, .16]. Participants who responded to leaders after their death regarded them as better identity leaders and as more connected with the group than those who were surveyed before the leaders’ deaths, and these perceptions, in turn, were related to their evaluations of the leaders as more charismatic.

Figure 1.
The direct and indirect effects of condition through identity leadership and identity fusion on charisma. Asterisks indicate significant coefficients (p < .05, p < .01, p < .001).

In addition, we also ran additional mediation analyses which examined one mediator at a time. These revealed a significant indirect effect of identity leadership on the relation between condition and charisma (γ = .15, SE = .08, 95%CIs [.03, .34]) and also an indirect effect of fusion with the nation (Germany) on the relation between condition and charisma (γ = .06, SE = .03, 95%CIs [.01, .15]).

Discussion

The present research set out to replicate and extend previous research on postmortem increases in leader charisma by examining the extent to which identity leadership and identity fusion mediate the effect of a leader’s death on followers’ perceptions of the leader’s charisma in the context of the actual death of national leaders.

Consistent with H1, there was a significant effect of death on charisma, such that perceptions of leaders’ charisma increased following those leaders’ deaths. These results are consistent with Steffens and colleagues’ (2017) observation that leader charisma arises, at least in part, from followers’ attributions about that leader (e.g., Allison et al., 2009; Allison and Goethals, 2008; Haslam et al., 2001, 2011; Platow et al., 2006; Steffens et al., 2014; van Knippenberg and van Knippenberg, 2005). In addition, the analyses also revealed a significant effect of death on both individuals’ perceptions of the leader’s identity leadership and identity fusion with the group, such that perceptions of identity leadership and fusion with the group were higher when the leader was dead rather than alive. It is worth noting that the direct effects of the death versus alive condition were only significant when taking the specific leader into account as an additional factor (where Schmidt was seen as more charismatic than Kohl). This is because not including the individual leader introduced additional variance into the analysis. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the pattern of the effect of death was identical across the two leaders and that there was no evidence that charisma varied interactively as a function of these two factors (death and the specific leader).

In line with H2, results indicated that identity leadership and identity fusion mediated the effect of leaders’ death on enhanced charisma. Specifically, the indirect effect provides evidence that followers’ post-mortem evaluations of the leader reinforced their belief that the leader had created and promoted a sense of shared identity. This in turn was related to enhanced perceptions of the leader’s fusion with the group, and ultimately perceptions of their charisma. These findings suggest that identity leadership may, at least in part, invite perceptions of the leader’s fusion with the group that are not derivative of extreme pro-group practice and sacrifice, as shown in previous research (e.g., Swann and Buhrmester, 2015; Swann et al., 2012). Instead, it appears that fusion can arise from social dynamics within the leader–follower relationship. In this way, the study extends upon previous work into the death–charisma link by showing that that identity leadership underlies the mediational effect of identity fusion.

Limitations and future research

The present study has a number of limitations that could inform future research. As, for obvious reasons, we could not randomly assign participants to conditions, our research had a between-subjects design such that different people answered our surveys before and after the leaders’ death. As a result, we cannot completely rule out the possibility that differences between samples contributed to the observed effects. Accordingly, there would be value in replicating the study with a within-subjects design to examine the emergence of the death–charisma link among the same participants. This approach may be extended to replications of past research on charismatic leadership to reduce error variance arising from individual differences, as well as from the different contexts in which the surveys were presented to participants.

The present study could also be replicated with leaders from distinct sectors (e.g., religion, sports, and business). Previous research on charisma has argued for the comparison of charismatic leaders across domains, given that “it is not what the leader is, but what people see the leader as that counts in generating the charismatic relationship” (Willner, 1984, p. 14). In this regard, future work might explore the role that charismatic leaders play following their death in the instigation and maintenance of social movements. Furthermore, it would be interesting to examine the generalizability of the death–charisma link in the context of judgments of leaders across different cultures. Here we would expect that judgments would be shaped by patterns of shared identity as these pertain to the follower–leader relationship rather than by shared identity per se—so that, for example, judgments of religious leaders’ charisma would be shaped by shared religious identity rather than shared national identity. Similarly, changes in perceived charisma may be examined during leadership succession by testing whether the relationships found in the present study are influenced by whether followers perceive the currently deceased leader as more or less charismatic than his or her successor—along the lines of the increased charisma attributed to US President Obama after the election of Donald Trump.

In future research it would also be interesting to investigate the longevity of the death–charisma link. In this respect, the present research is confined to the short-term investigation of changes in followers’ perceptions shortly after the leader’s death. However, it would be interesting to examine the effect longitudinally with a view to identifying potential fluctuations in the effect over time. Furthermore, such analysis may shed light on the role that the media plays in stimulating social identification processes and inferences about political leaders, as theorized in previous research (e.g., Carlson and Zmud, 1999; Eberl et al., 2017; Kepplinger, 2007; Neubaum and Krämer, 2017). The death–charisma link, for instance, may be most apparent when media coverage and gossip is at its peak, but decline as the newsworthiness of a person’s death diminishes.

Finally, future studies might also consider the role of followers’ identification with leaders on perceived charisma. This identification could serve as either a moderating or a mediating variable. On the one hand, we might predict stronger effects of death on attributions of charisma for those who identify more strongly with their leaders, in which case identification would serve as a moderator. On the other hand, as in the present study, death could strengthen a person’s identification with a leader and, mediated by identity leadership and fusion, this would then lead to greater attributions of charisma.

Conclusion

In showing that leaders’ charisma is increased by their death, the present research supports claims that leader chaisma is an attribution made by perceivers rather than simply a reflection of those leaders’ objective characteristics or behavior. However, extending upon other recent research which has made this point, the study also helps us to understand why leaders’ charisma increases after their death. In particular, it appears that, once they die, followers are more likely to see leaders as charismatic because (a) they recognize the leader’s contribution to a collective identity (as sense of “us”) that they share with followers and (b) they see those leaders to be more fused with the group. These observations support recent theorizing which suggests that charismatic leadership is heavily grounded in dynamic processes associated with emergent social group membership. In this way, the study provides a platform for future research to build upon in the process of exploring fundamental questions about the role of social group processes in the cultivation of leaders’ charismatic appeal.

Variable	M	SD	1.	2.	3.	4.
1. Condition (1 = alive, 2 = dead)	1.62	0.49	–
2. Identity leadership	4.36	1.14	.12	.85
2. Fusion with Germany	4.35	1.12	.18*	.78**	.91
3. Charisma	4.35	1.11	.11	.72**	.68**	.81

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Rolf van Dick and Louisa Fink are at the Institute of Psychology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany. Niklas Steffens, Kim Peters and Alex Haslam are at the School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Australia.

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author biographies

Rolf van Dick is a professor of social psychology at Goethe University Frankfurt (Germany) and serves as the University’s Vice President of International Affairs. Prior to his present position, he was professor of social psychology and organizational behavior at Aston Business School in Birmingham (UK). He was editor of the British Journal of Management and the Journal of Personnel Psychology and held visiting appointments at universities in Nepal, USA, China, Italy, Greece and Norway.

Louisa Fink is currently a master student for Organizational and Social Psychology at the London School of Economics and Political Science (England). She holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in Psychology and Leadership from the University of Exeter (UK). She is an affiliated researcher at the Social Psychology Department at Goethe University Frankfurt (Germany).

Niklas K Steffens is a lecturer in psychology and Australian Research Council DECRA Fellow at the University of Queensland. His work focuses on self and identity, leadership and followership, motivation and creativity, and health and well-being.

Kim Peters is a senior lecturer in organizational psychology at the University of Queensland. Her research focuses on social influence processes (including communication and leadership) in social and organizational settings. Her work has been published in leading journals in social psychology and management science and she works closely with organizations to examine the role of psychological factors in organizational functioning.

S. Alexander Haslam is a professor of psychology and Australian Laureate Fellow at the University of Queensland. His research focuses on the study of group and identity processes in social, organizational, and clinical contexts. Together with over 200 coauthors around the world, Alex has written and edited 12 books and published over 200 peer-reviewed articles on these topics.

References

Allison

Eylon

Beggan

, et al. (2009) The demise of leadership: Positivity and negativity biases in evaluations of dead leaders. The Leadership Quarterly 20: 115–129.

Allison

Goethals

(2008) Deifying the dead and downtrodden: Sympathetic figures as inspirational leaders. In Ciulla

Forsyth

Genovese

, et al. (eds) Leadership at the Crossroads. Westport, CT: Praeger, pp. 181–196.

Antonakis

Bastardoz

Jacquart

, et al. (2016) Charisma: An ill-defined and ill-measured gift. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 3: 293–319.

Avolio

Bass

(2004) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Manual and Sampler Set. Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden.

Barsalou

(2008) Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 59: 617–645.

Bligh

Kohles

Pillai

(2005) Crisis and charisma in the California recall election. Leadership 1(3): 323–352.

Brewer

Gardner

(1996) Who is this “We”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71: 83–93.

Carlson

Zmud

(1999) Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions. Academy of Management 42: 153–170.

Castelnovo

Popper

Koren

(2017) The innate code of charisma. The Leadership Quarterly 28: 543–554.

10.

Eberl

Wagner

Boomgaarden

(2017) Are perceptions of candidate traits shaped by the media? The effects of three types of media bias. The International Journal of Press/Politics 22: 111–132.

11.

Ellemers

De Gilder

Haslam

(2004) Motivating individuals and groups at work: A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. The Academy of Management Review 29: 459–478.

12.

Ellemers

Spears

Doosje

(2002) Self and social identity. Annual Review of Psychology 53: 161–186.

13.

Gómez

Brooks

Buhrmester

, et al. (2011) On the nature of identity fusion: Insights into the construct and a new measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100: 918–933.

14.

Haslam

Platow

Turner

, et al. (2001) Social identity and the romance of leadership: The importance of being seen to be ‘doing it for us’. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 4: 191–205.

15.

Haslam

Reicher

Platow

(2011) The New Psychology of Leadership: Identity, Influence and Power. Hove, England: Psychology Press.

16.

Hayes

(2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

17.

Hewstone

Brown

(1986) Contact and Conflict in Intergroup Encounters. Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishing.

18.

Hooper

Coughlan

Mullen

(2008) Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 6: 23–60.

19.

Hornsey

Jetten

(2004) The individual within the group: Balancing the need to belong with the need to be different. Personality and Social Psychology Review 8: 248–264.

20.

Kepplinger

(2007) Reciprocal effects: Toward a theory of mass media effects on decision makers. The International Journal of Press/Politics 48: 351–360.

21.

Kranjec

McDonough

(2011) The implicit and explicit embodiment of time. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 735–748.

22.

Ladkin

(2006) The enchantment of the charismatic leader: Charisma reconsidered as aesthetic encounter. Leadership 2: 165–179.

23.

Lakens

(2014) Grounding social embodiment. Social Cognition 32: 168–183.

24.

Meindl

(1995) The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social constructionist approach. The Leadership Quarterly 6: 329–341.

25.

Neubaum

Krämer

(2017) Opinion climates in social media: Blending mass and interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research 43: 464–476.

26.

Niedenthal

(2007) Embodying emotion. Science 31: 10102–11005.

27.

Platow

Knippenberg

Haslam

, et al. (2006) A special gift we bestow on you for being representative of us: Considering leader charisma from a self‐categorization perspective. British Journal of Social Psychology 45: 303–320.

28.

Popper

Castelnovo

(2017) The function of myths about great leaders in human culture: A cultural evolutionary perspective. Leadership. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1177/1742715017720309.

29.

Postmes

Haslam

Swaab

(2005) Social influence in small groups: An interactive model of social identity formation. European Journal of Social Psychology 16: 1–42.

30.

Prentice

Miller

Lightdale

(1994) Asymmetries in attachments to groups and to their members: Distinguishing between common-identity and common-bond groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20: 484–493.

31.

Reh

van Quaquebeke

Giessner

(2017) The aura of charisma: A review on the embodiment perspective. The Leadership Quarterly 26: 486–507.

32.

Shamir

House

Arthur

(1993) The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organizational Science 4: 577–594.

33.

Simonton

(1994) Greatness: Who Makes History and Why. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

34.

Spears

Oakes

Ellemers

, et al. (1997) The Social Psychology of Stereotyping and Group Life. Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers.

35.

Steffens

Haslam

Reicher

(2014) Up close and personal: Evidence that shared social identity is a basis for the ‘special’ relationship that binds followers to leaders. The Leadership Quarterly 25: 296–313.

36.

Steffens

Haslam

Reicher

, et al. (2014) Leadership as social identity management: Introducing the Identity Leadership Inventory (ILI) to assess and validate a four-dimensional model. The Leadership Quarterly 25: 1004–1025.

37.

Steffens

Peters

Haslam

, Vet al. (2017) Dying for charisma: Leaders’ inspirational appeal increases post-mortem. The Leadership Quarterly 28: 530–542.

38.

Swann

Buhrmester

(2015) Identity fusion. Current Directions in Psychological Science 24: 52–57.

39.

Swann

Jetten

Gómez

, et al. (2012) When group membership gets personal: A theory of identity fusion. Psychological Review 119: 441–456.

40.

Tajfel

(1978) Differentiation between Social Groups. Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press.

41.

Thibault

(2004) Brain, Mind and the Signifying Body: An Ecosocial Semiotic Theory. London, UK: A. & C. Black.

42.

Turner JC, Hogg MA, Oakes PJ, Reicher SD and Wetherell MS (1987). Rediscovering the Social Group. Blackwell, Oxford.

43.

Turner

Oakes

(1986) The significance of the social identity concept for social psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism and social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology 25: 237–252.

44.

Turner

Oakes

Haslam

, et al. (1994) Self and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20: 454–463.

45.

Van Knippenberg

(2005) Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology 90: 25–37.

46.

Van Knippenberg

(2011) Embodying who we are: Leader group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly 22: 1078–1091.

47.

Weber

(1925) Wirtschaft Und Gesellschaft [Economy and Society]. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck.

48.

Willner

(1984) The Spellbinders: Charismatic Political Leadership. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.