NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR AND LEADERSHIP ENACTMENTS

NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR AND LEADERSHIP ENACTMENTS
People express their view of themselves and their relationship to oth-
ers largely through nonverbal behavior. In the case of leaders, interper-
sonal nonverbal behavior will typically be assertive and express5. NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR AND POLITICAL LEADERSHIP 99
superiority in the relationship. In Watzlawick's terms, it will be "one-
up" behavior. Others are invited to be "one-down," essentially follow-
ers. As many leadership theorists have argued (e.g., Burns, 1978; Hol-
lander, 1993), if leadership is to exist, others must accept the
invitation to follow. Burns emphasizes that leadership is a relation-
ship. Hollander begins with the assumption that followers "accord and
withdraw support to leaders" (p. 29). Thus leadership is negotiated
and followers accord support to individual leaders depending on their
own motives. But how precisely do leaders use nonverbal behavior to
appeal to others to accord them support?
First, while our focus is on nonverbal behavior, as noted above non-
verbal and verbal behavior are distinguishable but inseparable. They
combine in a Gestalt. Roger Brown (1986) wrote: "Certainly, good ac-
tors can contribute something to the emotional impact of Romeo and
Juliet, but it is generally supposed that Shakespeare's exclusively ver-
bal contribution (the written transcript) is not negligible." (p. 497).
Both verbal and nonverbal elements are important. Also, recall that
Erving Goffman's quote above refers to the "pattern of verbal and non-
verbal acts" that expresses a person's view of himself, others, and the
situation. Finally, Howard Gardner's (1995) Leading Minds contends
that leadership is primarily about the "stories" leaders tell. In most
cases the stories are told or "related" with words. But in addition to
telling stories, leaders embody their stories to varying degrees. Their
behavior other than words, that is, their nonverbal behavior, may illus-
trate the story, or may contradict it. Ronald Reagan's story of the im-
portance of a strong American military was somewhat undermined by
the fact that he spent World War II in Culver City making movies rather
than fighting in Europe or the Pacific. On the other hand, Pope John
XXIII preached a message of humility and openness, and embodied it
in his nonverbal behavior. He smiled, bowed, and listened. His well-il-
lustrated story provoked a strong negative reaction, a counterstory,
from the church hierarchy. But Pope John had the advantage of telling
and embodying a story that was resonant with the teachings and life of
Jesus. His story was compelling, and many followers accorded him
support (Gardner, 1995).
One exploration of leadership that makes plain the interaction of
words and nonverbal expression is John Keegan's (1987) Mask of
Command, a study of military leadership:
[Leaders] are both shown to and hidden from the mass of humankind,
revealed by artifice, presented by theatre. The theatrical impulse will be
strong in the successful politician, teacher, entrepreneur, athlete, or di-
vine, and will be both expected and reinforced by the audiences to which
they perform .... What they should know of him must be what they hope
and require. What they should not know of him must be concealed at all
costs. The leader of men in warfare can show himself to his followers
only through a mask, a mask that he must make for himself, but a mask100 GOETHALS
made in such form as will mark him to men of his time and place as the
leader they want and need. (p. 11)
Keegan illustrates this perspective exceptionally well in his treat-
ment of Alexander the Great. Usefully, he comments both on the theat-
rical (largely nonverbal) and oratorical (largely verbal) aspects of
Alexander's leadership. "Theatricality was at the very heart of Alexan-
der's style of leadership ... His appearances in the field of battle [were]
dramatic stage entries, tellingly timed and significantly costumed" (pp.
47-48). As for oratory, Alexander combined verbal and nonverbal ele-
ments in leading effectively. He had a "forceful and collected style" and
used the rhetorical devices of a prebattle speech, urging his soldiers to
follow him, and to achieve victory once again as they had in the past.
Richard Brookhiser's (1996) biography of George Washington ex-
plains the role of nonverbal behavior in our first president's leader-
ship. He reports that an English visitor wrote during Washington's first
presidential term "Washington has something uncommonly majestic
and commanding in his walk, his address, his figure, and counte-
nance" (p. 52). Brookhiser writes that he "had physical authority in its
simplest form, and though he enhanced it with exercise and adorn-
ment, they functioned as supplements, not substitutes" (p. 56). His fa-
cial expression often showed a towering temper, but usually under
firm control. Washington was not an orator, but when he spoke the
nonverbal supports increased his impact and capacity to lead.
A final example is Ronald Reagan. As David Gergen (2000) writes in
Eyewitness to Power, Reagan himself attributed his reputation as "the
great communicator" to what he said: "It was the content. I wasn't a
great communicator, but I communicated great things" (p. 216). Rea-
gan, of course, was kidding. He had honed his speaking skills over
many years, first as an actor and then as a pitchman for General Elec-
tric, and later for Barry Goldwater. There are many mannerisms and
nonverbal attributes that made Reagan effective. Just as one example,
for the moment, many have commented on his "honeyed voice."
Gergen wrote that "He spoke in warm, velvety tones that enveloped lis-
teners and made them feel good�"about themselves and about him ...
he talked softly, even gently at times" (pp. 218-219). But importantly
as well, the voice and manner matched the words, and gave them addi-
tional credibility and impact. Reagan could also speak in a stern, force-
ful manner, as when he challenged the Russians to historic change in
Berlin: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."
There is one fascinating study of the impact of Reagan's manner and
the way his nonverbal behavior drew people in (McHugo, Lanzetta,
Sullivan, Masters, & Englis, 1985). Undergraduates at Dartmouth
College watched videotaped excerpts from Reagan press conferences.
They were asked to report their reactions to what they saw and heard,
and their emotional reactions were also assessed via facial electromyo-
graphy, skin resistance, and heart rate. The students' prior attitudes