The Journal of Leadership Studies, 1995, Vol. 2, No. 3

A Beginning Synthesisof Leadership and

Communication Studies

Brian W. T. MoffittUniversity of San Diego

Executive Summary

Contemporary leadership scholars suggest the need to develop aninterdisciplinary definition and practice of leadership to prepare people for apostindustrial era. Although leadership has been studied from variousperspectives, the discipline of communication studies has been overlooked inthis effort. In this article, I attempt to integrate scholarly material from theliteratures of communication and leadership studies. Within this review, Iexplicate the texts of predominant leadership scholars to demonstrate theoreticalaffinity between their views of leadership and a dramaturgical school ofcommunication studies. From this foundation, I construct a dramatistic definitionand method of leadership. The author is hopeful that this theoretical synthesiswill bring more attention to the neglected relationship between leadership andcommunication studies.

About the Author: Brian W,T. Moffitt is the Mental Health Resource Development Specialist withthe Department of Health Services of the County of San Diego. Prior to that, he worked as atrainer and developer in the Boston area. His undergraduate and master's degrees are incommunication studies from Bridgewater State College, Massachusetts, with an emphasis inorganizational communication. He is currently engaged in his doctoral studies in leadership atthe University of San Diego. He plans to do his doctoral research on the connect/on betweencommunication studies and leadership studies.

146 The Journal of Leadership Studies Moffitt

Introduction: The Need for a Synthesis

In his critically acclaimed book, Leadership, political scientist and historianJames McGregor Burns (1978) proclaimed "leadership is one of the mostobserved and least understood phenomena on earth" (p. 2). In his book,Leadership for the Twenty-first Century, Joseph Rost (1993) exclaimed "a highpriority for the 1990s is to reach a consensus on a clear, concise, easilyunderstandable, researchable, practical, and persuasive definition of leadership"(p. 8). In his concluding chapter on leadership in the future, Rost suggested that"leadership scholars need to develop an academic presence as aninterdisciplinary area of studies serving both undergraduate and graduatestudents in specialized programs that deal with the study and the practice ofleadership in organizations and in societies" (p. 182). As we approach the nextcentury with a movement towards a postindustrial era, it is clear that we needan overarching, interdisciplinary definition and practice of leadership to assist uswith the challenges ahead.

Scholars have studied leadership from various perspectives and disciplines,such as political science, history, education, psychology, sociology and theology.This is evident to anyone reviewing some of the more prominent works in thefield, including Burns (1978), English (1994), Foster (1989), Kouzes and Posner(1993), Mitchell (1992), Rosenbach and Taylor (1993), Starratt (1993), and Rost(1993, 1994). However, these authors did not include any substantial materialfrom the discipline..of communication studies. Communication theory andmethod (itself an overarching, interdisciplinary study) can respond to the needexpressed by Burns and Rost.

Leadership scholars have implied or made minor attempts to explicitly integratecommunication studies into their analysis of the leadership process. Forexample, English (1994) called for the reconnection of science to life in the studyof educational leadership through speech: "Speech is central to ideas and to theexpression of ideas . .. speech is anchored in a world of the living. . . . Speechis the expression of life as it is lived" (p. 229). In articulating the nature ofleadership, Rost (1993) stated "leadership is the sum total of all the interactionsamong all the leaders and followers in that relationship" (p. 111). In his reviewof traditions of leadership research, Foster (1989) posited that leadership "is theresult of human interactions and negotiations" (p. 42). In their preface,Rosenbach and Taylor (1993) wrote "to study leadership apart from the complexinteractions leaders have with their followers is to miss the most importantaspect of leadership" (p. xi). Although these authors referred to the process ofhuman communication, they did not engage in any meaningful or indepthanalysis of the process as it relates to leadership.

In his book The Drama of Leadership, Robert J. Starratt (1993) introducedKenneth Burke's concept of dramatism (which many scholars consider apredominant communication theory and method). However, Starratt omittedseveral vital elements of Burke's dramatistic theory and method. Hence, aserious attempt to explicate leadership studies from a communicativeperspective has yet to be completed.

A Beginning Synthesis of Leadership Volume 2, Number 3,1995 147

In this article, I attempt to integrate scholarly material from the literatures ofcommunication and leadership studies. First, I highlight the dramatistic viewsof communication studies as influenced by Kenneth Burke (1931, 1935, 1937,1941, 1945, 1950a, 19505, 1966) and interpreted by Stephen W. Littlejohn(1978, 1992). Within this review, I explicate the texts of predominant leadershipscholars to demonstrate theoretical affinity between their views of leadershipand a dramaturgical school of communication studies. Then, I present Host's(1994) postindustrial definition of leadership-"an influence relationship amongleaders and their collaborators who intend real changes that reflect their mutualpurposes" (p. 102)--in a dramatistic framework, thereby providing acommunication (rhetorical) method for the study of leadership. Finally, Iconclude with some suggestions for building on this foundation. I want toemphasize that this is a beginning synthesis and my hope is that it leads to moreindepth analysis and study.

Communication and Leadership Affinity: Dramatism

Like leadership, communication studies is elusive and very broad in terms oftheoretical orientations and applications. However, as communication professorand author Stephen W. Littlejohn (1978) noted, "the communication process isprimarily one of symbolic interaction" (p. 25). Symbolic interactionist HughDuncan (1964) wrote: "it may be said without exaggeration that anyone writingtoday on communication, however "original1 he may be, is echoing somethingsaid by Burke" (p. 105), Kenneth Burke wrote widely in many areas includingcreative writing, literary and rhetorical criticism, social psychology, and linguisticanalysis. He wrote over a period of 50 years, and his dramatistic theory andmethod is the most influential of all the symbolic interactionists. Unfortunately,Burke is not noted for clarity of style. Several communication and rhetoricaltheorists have provided valuable written interpretations of his ideas, mostnotably Littlejohn.

Consistent with symbolic interactionist George Herbert Mead (1934), Burkedistinguished human beings from the animal world based on their symbol-usingbehavior and their ability to act. Human beings are symbol-creating, symbol-using, and symbol-misusing animals (Littlejohn, 1992, p. 179). Burke (1935)constructed a dramatistic approach to human communication: "human conductbeing in the realm of action and end ... is most directly discussible in dramaticterms" (p. 274). His dramatistic view of communication includes threeinterrelated concepts: Guilt, substance, and identification. In reviewing theseconcepts, I want to explicate the writings of leadership scholars in order todemonstrate theoretical affinity between the worlds of leadership andcommunication studies.

Guilt. Guilt is an all-purpose word for any feeling of tension, anxiety,embarrassment, self-hatred, disgust, inferiority or impotence. Guilt is a commontheme woven throughout Burke's most influential writings. Only humansexperience guilt as a result of their symbol-using behavior. There are threeinterrelated sources of guilt which arise from the dichotomous and polarizednature of human language.

148 The Journal of Leadership Studies Moffitt

The first is the negative. People construct rules and moralize (animals do not).When a person satisfies one rule, he or she necessarily breaks another, creatingguilt. The second source of guilt is the principle of perfection. People strive toaccomplish an imagined ideal. When there is a discrepancy between the realand ideal, guilt results. The third source of guilt is the principle of hierarchy.Society structures itself and as a result, classes form. Competition and classdivisions promote guilt feelings. Guilt, according to Burke, is the main motivationfor human communication.

A common theme in the leadership literature is a focus on the sources andmotivations for leadership. For example, Burns wrote "tension, conflict, andinsecurity have marked the early lives of ... leaders" (p. 59). Kouzes andPosner argued that "when people work with leaders they admire and respect,they feel better about themselves. Credible leaders raise self-esteem" (p. 31).Starratt discussed leadership in relation to daily routines that build or maintainontological security: "We feel secure in our ordinary day-to-day activitiesbecause the routines of language, gesture, symbolic bodily movementcommunicate a sense both to ourselves and to others that we know what we aredoing" (p. 30). These statements clearly reflect that insecurity and conflict, andpoor self-esteem prompt the emergence of a leadership situation. From" adramatistic perspective, guilt and its analogous conditions can be viewed as asource or motivation for leadership,

Substance. The most basic idea behind Burke's views on communication is thedoctrine of substance. Substance is the general nature, fundamentals or gestaltpattern of anything. Every individual is unique and has a unique substance.Although there is some overlap from one person's substance to another, thereis always some degree of separation. This condition prevents idealcommunication and leads to conflict. When there is some overlap of substancefrom one person, group, organization or society to another, this leads to adegree of consubstantiality (sharing of common substance). Consubstantialityallows for communication because it creates a condition of shared meanings forthe symbols in use.

Leadership scholars frequently refer to the substance of leaders and theircollaborators and the conflict that results from a lack of shared substance amongpeople. For example, Starratt wrote "the new generation of leadership theoriesand models probe the substance of leadership, namely, what was the "stuff thatleaders dealt with" (p. 4). Kouzes and Posner recommended the following toreconcile values dilemmas facing leaders: "The first step in reconcilingdifferences is to explore our own inner territory, so that we are clear about whatis important to us and what we are seeking in a relationship" (p. 139). Burnsnoted "the sharper the conflict, the larger the role of leaders will tend to be" (p.429). Conflict here can be seen as a lack of shared substance among people,and leadership is needed to move people closer to a state of consensus or asatisfactory degree of consubstantiality.

A Beginning Synthesis of Leadership Volume 2, Number 3,1995 149

Leadership scholars implicitly refer to the striving towards consubstantialrtyamong leaders and collaborators in their writings. For example, Rost's "mutualpurpose" (p. 120), Burns' "common purpose" (p. 439), Foster's "communalrelationship" (p. 49), and English's "common good" (p. 164) indicate a consistentemphasis on a mutual, communal or consubstantial ontology.

Identification. The third major concept of Burke's theory is identification.Identification is similar to consubstantiality and division is the opposite ofidentification. Division and the guilt it produces are the primary motives forcommunication (Littlejohn, 1992). Communication, as a strategy to promoteidentification and/or reduce division, can occur in groups, organizations andsocieties. Identification and division are not confined to face-to-face humaninteraction. In large hierarchies, persons occupying a lower strata position mayidentify with persons occupying higher strata positions. Obviously, there is greatpotential for division here. Although persons occupying different levels in ahierarchy may have little or no direct physical contact, identification is stillpossible. According to Burke, the lower strata person identifies with theperceived substance of the higher strata person, thereby minimizing perceiveddivision. This phenomenon is referred to as identification through mystification.The challenge presented to both higher and lower strata persons(leaders/collaborators) is a continuous attempt to achieve a state ofconsubstantiality. Identification through mystification also occurs throughmediated communication, such as the collaboration/following that can beattributed to television, film and radio heroes and celebrities (leaders).

Leadership scholars also refer to the notion of identification and division and thechanges that result from communication. Starratt noted that "there is a naturaland healthy desire in ordinary people to be connected to some intelligible orderin the cosmos, a desire to be grounded in some fundamental meaning about thenature and purpose of human life" (p. 47). People engage in commjjnication asa strategy of identification to achieve a satisfactory level of consTJbstarTfiaTifyr'Ffowever, some levels of consubstantiality become perceived as unsatisfactory.For example, Starratt also noted that "complacency with the status quoeventually brings about the crisis which, in turn, calls for the emergence ofleadership" (p. 152). Furthermore, Burns posited that "if change in one part ofa system [striving towards identification] seems to threaten other parts[perceived division], it is sealed off; at most it is not allowed to change muchfaster than the others" (p. 416). Leadership, in this sense, can be described asa form of communication used by persons to promote change in the form ofidentification or division for a different identification. Whichever form the changetakes is contingent on the substance of the leaders and their collaborators, thenature of their influence relationship and the power resources at their disposal.

Changes associated with identification or division prompt the emergence of aninfluence relationship. Rost defines influence as "using persuasion to have animpact on other people in a relationship" (p. 107). Furthermore, Rostemphasizes that such influence relationships must be multidirectional (influenceflows in all directions) and noncoercive (not based on authority, power or

150 The Journal of Leadership Studies Moffitt

dictatorial actions) if leadership is to occur. In this view, leadership can be seenas a communication process wherein persons freely engage in influencerelationships to promote identification in order to compensate for perceiveddivision, or to promote division and a new state of identification to compensatefor what is perceived as a complacent or unsatisfactory state. Persons utilizea variety of what Rost calls "power resources" (favorable traits, useful skills, andcountless other elements of noncoercive or nonauthoritarian-based persuasion)to aid them in their influence relationships.

In short, leadership can be viewed as a communication strategy in whichpersons engage to respond to guilt in order to promote identification or division,whichever fosters a comfortable degree of consubstantiality among the leadersand collaborators in question. The resultant changes are products of the guiltand substance of the leaders and their collaborators, the process of influenceand the use of power resources.

In the next section, I describe Burke's dramatistic method. It has been used asa tool for communication analysis and rhetorical criticism. This approach can beadapted and applied to the analysis and understanding of leadership from acommunication (dramatistic) perspective.

A Dramatistic Method for the Study of Leadership

A major contribution of Kenneth Burke's dramatistic view of humancommunication is his dramatistic pentad. Burke realized there are limitlessstrategies that people use to achieve identification in their worlds. So heconstructed a methodological pentad for the study of any act, consisting of fiveelements. The first is the acf--what is done by the actors. The situation orsetting where the act is accomplished is the scene. The agents are all that isknown about the actors, including their substance. The agency is the means,vehicle, or instrument used by the agents in carrying out the act. Finally, thepurpose is the reason for the act.

Littlejohn (1978) provided a brief example of how the pentad could be used toanalyze John Dean's testimony to the Senate Watergate Committee:

The act would be Dean's appearance and revelation of the details of thecover-up. The scene would be the Senate committee room withinWashington in the social and cultural milieu of the United States in 1973.The agent would be Dean himself, including his history, personality,manner, demeanor, values, attitudes, beliefs, etc. The agency would behis testimony, and his purpose would be his reasons for saying what hedid, what he hoped would be accomplished intrapersonally andinterpersonally. Each of the five pentadic elements would be used by acritic for a truly in-depth analysis of the entire Dean testimony and itsramifications, (p. 72)

A Beginning Synthesis of Leadership Volume 2, Numbers, 1995 151

Littlejohn's illustration is an example of how to use the pentad for rhetoricalcriticism. Rhetorical criticism is a method used in the discipline ofcommunication studies to study any human act.

However, how do we use the pentad (as a rhetorical/communication method) tostudy leadership? As Rost (1993) argued, we need a precise definition to beable to clearly understand and distinguish leadership from other humanrelationships. To carve out a rhetorical method for the study of leadership, Iintend to integrate Burke's dramatistic pentad and Rost's (1994) definition ofleadership. My focus is on Rost's definition since it has been recentlyconstructed to prepare people for a postindustrial future and it is considered asignificant achievement in the field of leadership studies.

Rost (1994) defined leadership as "an influence relationship among leaders andtheir collaborators who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes"(p. 102). Below I have listed each element of Rost's definition, followed bysuggestions on what critics and scholars alike may focus in a dramatisticanalysis of leadership.

The Relationship Is Based on Influence

The influence process is multidirectional and noncoercive in nature. As statedearlier, influence is a strategy of identificatiortor division. Persons use a varietyof power resources in their influence relationships. An examination of the powerresources used by leaders and their collaborators would provide considerableinsight into the influence relationship. From a dramatistic perspective, the criticcould focus on the pentadic element of agency-how leadership wasaccomplished. The critic could also use the concepts of guilt, substance oridentification to understand how leaders and collaborators influenced otherpeople to support a program of change (whether it was identification or division).

Leaders and Their Collaborators Are the Actors in This Relationship

Both leaders and their collaborators are doing leadership. The critic could focuson the pentadic element of̂ agente--who is involved in the act? This wouldinvolve an examination of the substance of the leaders and their collaborators,including a dramatistic analysis of the guilt of the agents involved as a sourceor motivation for leadership. Again, an examination of the power resources thatthe agents used would give additional perspectives.

Leaders and Their Collaborators Intend Real Changes

Intend means the changes that are promoted are purposeful. The changes arereal in that they are substantive or transforming. An analysis of this elementwould involve a study of the pentadic element of ac^what happened? What isthe nature of the intended change? Is it to promote division or identification, orsome combination of both? Does it satisfy their purpose (satisfactory state ofconsubstantiality)?

152 The Journal of Leadership Studies Moffitt

The Changes Reflect The Mutual Purposes of The Leaders and ThejrCollaborators

The mutual purposes become the common enterprise of the leaders and theircollaborators. The critic could focus on the puipnsG nf the act--another pentadicelement. Such an analysis may include the nature of guilt and its relationship to thespecific purpose of the leaders and collaborators. The critic could also examine thenature of consubstantiality (mutual purpose) and the intentions of the agents.

As the reader will note, there are similarities between the elements of Burke'sdramatistic pentad and Rost's definition of leadership, as illustrated in Table 1.

Table!

Burke's Dramatistic Pentad

The Act - what was done

The Scene - where

The Agents - who

The Agency - how

The Purpose .-why

Rost's Definition of Leadership

intend real change

(no element stated)

leaders and followers

influence relationship

reflect mutual purpose

I do not see the elements as discrete or dichotomous. Rather, there is overlapbetween and among the pentadic and definitional elements. Interestingly, Rostdid not include an element in his definition that explicitly relates to the pentadicelement of scene. I feel the environment is an influential variable in any act,including leadership. However, the scene can be viewed as an implicitdramatistic element of Rost's definition of leadership.

Summary: A Beginning

In this article, I have described a need to examine leadership from acommunication perspective. I explicated scholarly material from variousleadership authors to demonstrate theoretical affinity of their views with thedramatistic views of Burke. Leadership can be viewed as a communicationprocess where persons are motivated in response to guilt to engage inidentification or division to achieve a satisfactory level of consubstantiality.Leaders and their collaborators engage in influence relationships to promotetheir strategy of identification or division by using power resources (not powerwielding). I introduced Burke's dramatistic pentad and juxtaposed it with Rost'sdefinition of leadership to carve out a rhetorical/communication method for thestudy of leadership.

This dramatistic view of leadership can be helpful to scholars fromcommunication and leadership studies. In addition to the suggestions I have

A Beginning Synthesis of Leadership Volume2, Numbers, 1995 153

already made, critics and scholars are encouraged to pursue any of the followingideas and more to continue this synthesis of communication and leadershipstudies. First, scholars could expand on this dramatistic-leadership foundationto construct models for leadership training and development. Second, othercommunication theories and methods could be applied to the study ofleadership. These could include systems theory; theories of signs andlanguage, discourse, message production, message reception and processing;theories of social and cultural reality and theories of experience andinterpretation. Third, numerous rhetorical analyses of historical andcontemporary leaders could be integrated with contemporary leadershipdefinitions and concepts. Fourth, a study of the symbolic nature of powerresources could suggest some implications for the study and practice ofleadership. And fifth, argument as a rhetorical, epistemological method (Moffitt,1986) could be used to explore in greater depth the nature and process ofinfluence relationships. These and other studies would help leadership scholarsand practitioners develop an interdisciplinary consensus on a definition ofleadership which could then impact on the practice of leadership to prepare ourworld, societies, organizations, groups and individuals for a postindustrial future.

References

Burke, K. (1931). Counter-statement.York: Harcourt, Brace.

New

Burke, K. (1935). Permanence and change.New York: New Republic.

Burke, K. (1937). Attitudes toward history. NewYork: New Republic.

Burke, K. (1941), The philosophy of literaryform. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State UniversityPress.

Burke, K. (1945). A grammar of motives.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Burke, K. (1950a). A rhetoric of motives.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Burke, K. (1950b). A rhetoric of religion.Boston: Beacon Press.

Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action.Berkeley: University of California Press.

Burns, J. M. (1978).Harper & Row.

Leadership. New York:

Duncan, H. (1964).Arts in Society. (3).

Communication in society.

English, F. W. (1994). Theory in educationaladministration. New York: Harper Collins.

Foster, W. F. (1989). Toward a critical practiceof leadership. In J. Smyth (Ed.). Criticalperspectives on educational leadership (pp. 39-62). London: Falmer.

Kouzesr J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1993).Credibility. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Littlejohn, S. W. (1978). Theories of humancommunication. Columbus, OH: Bell &Howell.

Littlejohn, S. W. (1992). Theories of humancommunication. (4th ed.). Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mitchell, S. E. (1992, July). Leadership forliberation: The partnership model. Unpublishedmanuscript. University of San Diego, CA.

Moffitt, B. (1986). A Rhetorical, epistemologicalapproach to process consultation inorganizational settings. Unpublished master'sthesis, Bridgewater State College, MA.

Rosenbach, W. E.. & Taylor, R. L. (Eds.) (1993).Contemporary Issues in Leadership. Boulder,CO: Westview Press.

Rost, J. (1991). Leadership forthe twenty-firstcentury. New York: Praeger.

Rost, J. (1994, April). Moving from individual torelationship: A postindustrial paradigm ofleadership. Paper presented at the annualconference of the American EducationalResearch Association, New Orleans, LA.

Starratt, R. J. (1993). The drama of leadership.Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.