TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION:

BARACK OBAMA CASE STUDY

_______________

A Thesis

Presented to the

Faculty of

San Diego State University

_______________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

in

Communication

_______________

by

Sonja L. Hanson

Spring 2014
 iii

Copyright © 2014
by
Sonja L. Hanson
All Rights Reserved
 iv

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my dad, Dick Hanson, and also to all of the combat
wounded, ill, and injured service members as well as their families who gave so much for our
nation; you are such an inspiration and an example of resilience.
 v

Developing excellent communication skills is absolutely essential to effective leadership.

The leader must be able to share knowledge and ideas to transmit a sense of urgency and
enthusiasm to others. If a leader can't get a message across clearly and motivate others to act
on it, then having a message doesn't even matter.
- Gilbert Amelio
Former President and CEO of National Semiconductor Corp.
 vi

ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS

Transformational Leadership and Communication: Barack Obama

Case Study
by
Sonja L. Hanson
Master of Arts in Communications
San Diego State University, 2014

This case study contends communication is the key element that enables
transformational leadership. This research examines President Barack Obama’s rhetoric in
six of his speeches, which demonstrate his transformational leadership is manifested through
his communication, specifically that of the African American jeremiad. While
transformational leadership is explored thoroughly in the literature, few have focused on the
communication aspect. Obama’s transformational leadership is assessed through his
charismatic, visionary, unifying, motivating, hopeful, innovative, and guilt laden
communication framed within the African American jeremiad and his transformational
rhetoric. This thesis contributes to the field of communication by raising awareness about
the close relationship between transformational leadership and rhetoric.
 vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER
1 WHO IS BARACK OBAMA? ......................................................................................1 
2 THE LANGUAGE OF A LEADER ..............................................................................8 
Method .....................................................................................................................8 
Literature Review: Obama’s Redemption Rhetoric and Leadership Legacy ........11 
Leadership ..............................................................................................................15 
Transactional Leadership .......................................................................................17 
Transformational Leadership .................................................................................18 
Charisma ................................................................................................................20 
American and African American Jeremiad............................................................23 
American Jeremiad ................................................................................................23 
African American Jeremiad ...................................................................................26 
3 CASE STUDY: BARACK OBAMA’S TRANSFORMATIONAL
LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION................................................................30 
Follow Me ..............................................................................................................31 
Obama’s Transformational Rhetoric......................................................................32 
Vision .....................................................................................................................35 
Unification .............................................................................................................36 
Motivation and Hope .............................................................................................41 
Call to Action and Repetition in Rhetoric..............................................................43 
Innovation and Intellectual Stimulation .................................................................46 
Obama’s American Jeremiad .................................................................................48 
Obama’s African American Jeremiad ....................................................................50 
Sins of the Past and Guilt .......................................................................................54 
Racial Stalemate.....................................................................................................56 
 viii

4 DISCUSSION ..............................................................................................................60 
Enactment, Communication, Leadership ...............................................................60 
Theoretical Implications ........................................................................................61 
Practical Implications.............................................................................................63 
Limitations .............................................................................................................64 
Directions for Future Research ..............................................................................67 
Conclusion .............................................................................................................69 
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................73 
 ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thank you to Dr. Goehring for stepping in at the eleventh hour to provide your expert
guidance and knowledge in the field of rhetoric. Thank you Dr. Geist-Martin for dusting off
the file, continuing to believe in me through many delays and motivating me to just finish!
Thank you to Dr. Minifee for your perspective and for hanging in there with me through
multiple rewrites. Thank you Dr. Snavely for supporting me throughout this research
journey and thank you Dr. Renegar for inspiring me to study the field of rhetoric and for
supporting my concept from the beginning. Special thanks to all my friends from Barabbas
Road Church who prayed for and encouraged me through this process. Thank you to my
colleagues at Naval Medical Center San Diego and Navy Medicine West who gently nudged
me.
 1

CHAPTER 1

WHO IS BARACK OBAMA?

Barack Obama is the first African American to be elected as the President of the
United States and Commander in Chief. This change from a historically Caucasian president
to a Black president proves transformation, at the very least in terms of demographics. I
believe his transformational leadership coupled with transformational rhetoric was the
catalyst for this change.  
Barack Hussein Obama II. His name alone challenged the American norm. His first
name, Barack, meaning “blessed” was reflective of his African descent, while his Middle
Eastern middle name, Hussein, conjured public suspicions of a Muslim heritage and terrorist
connections, likely due to lingering fears and stereotypes that followed the terrorist attacks
on Sept. 11, 2001. This candidate pushed the limits of America’s tolerance for
transformation (Walker & Smithers, 2009). 
Beyond his name and race, Obama also had to overcome the hurdle of his limited
experience with only one term in the Senate. His political career officially began in 1996
when he was elected into the Illinois State Senate, where he served until 2004. On March 16,
2004, he ran for and won the Democratic primary with 52% of the vote for U.S. Senate. In
July 2004 he delivered the Democratic National Convention keynote address, which “thrust
Obama into the spotlight” (Harrell, 2010, p. 168), and on November 2, 2004 he won the U.S.
Senate Seat with 70% of the vote. On January 5, 2005, he was the “fifth African American
senator in U.S. history and the third to have been popularly elected” (Harrell, 2010, p. 181).
On February 10, 2007 Obama formerly announced his run for President. On January 3,
2008, Obama won in Iowa by a “record turnout of voters who embraced his promise of
change,” (Nagourney, 2008) and on January 26, 2008 he carried South Carolina, “drawing a
wide majority of black support and one-quarter of white voters” (Zeleny & Connelly, 2008).
Election results reported by The New York Times (2007), showed that by February 5,
2008 Obama had won thirteen states to democratic opponent Hillary Clinton’s nine, followed
by twelve consecutive straight wins leading up to March 4, 2008. Then on May 6, 2008,
 2

Obama won North Carolina, becoming the first American black candidate on June 3. On
October 28, 2008 he accepted the Presidential nomination on the same platform where he
delivered his DNC speech four years earlier. On November 4, 2008, Obama won the
presidential election with 365 electoral votes.
His age was another obstacle as he was the youngest 2008 presidential candidate at
age 45 (Pickler, 2007). Historically, he was among America’s youngest presidents, only
slightly older than President John Kennedy who was 43 when he was elected into office and
Theodore Roosevelt, who was 42 when he succeeded William McKinley, following his
assassination (Pickler, 2007). Obama held one of the longest campaigns in history, running
21 months, and he raised more campaign funds than any other candidate (CNN, 2008). In
addition, the presidential elections of 2008 marked the largest voter turnout since 1972
(Huffington Post, 2008). Furthermore, state-to-state transformation was evident by Obama’s
victory in all of the swing states as well as wins in Virginia and Indiana, states that had not
been won by a democrat in a generation (Gans & Hussey, 2008; History Central, 2008). 
While some may focus on the fact that Obama broke through the racial barrier to
become the first black president of the United States, I contend his victory was more than
skin deep and warrants examination of his rhetoric. He has been described as “a window
into the American psyche” and “a mirror – what you see depends on who you are and where
you stand” (Drehle, 2008). Although Obama’s race plays a role in his effective rhetoric, I
argue his successful campaign is primarily attributed to his transformational rhetoric and
transformational leadership styles that unified ideologies and contributed to his presidential
election. Transformational leadership, simply put, is the ability to inspire a group of people
to follow a leader’s vision out of the hopes of a better outcome for both the individual and
the masses. Transformational leadership occurs when a leader stimulates, motivates, and
inspires a group to move toward the leader’s vision, with the idea that the vision will result in
a greater good for individuals, the community, and the country at large. If my theory proves
to be correct, this concept will be of utmost value to individuals striving to obtain a
leadership position, influence or change an organizational process or business model, execute
a movement, or other applications that require a large group of people changing behavior in
support of a unified goal. 
 3

Transformational leadership is distinct from other styles of leadership because “it

extends beyond traits, behaviors, and characteristics. Transformational leadership is about
inspiration, intellect, charisma, and individualized consideration” (Konorti & Eng, 2008, p.
11). I propose that such inspiration is conveyed through communication, people’s intellect is
validated through communication, people’s goals and vision are established through
communication, people’s values are extracted from communication, that communication is
the medium for charisma, and ultimately, that communication is the foundation for
transformational leadership.  
Scholars and leaders can certainly read about the characteristics of transformational
leadership, which states: “To become a transformational leader, a person needs to develop
and possess skills that go beyond basic management and administrative capabilities such as
directing, planning, and delegating” (Konorti & Eng, 2008, p. 11). But is it possible to
convert oneself into a transformational leader? If so how? Literature defines the concept,
but falls short by not fully equipping researchers with the answer on how to become a
transformational leader. Contrary to the current body of literature, I assert the development
of communication should be elevated as the primary skill essential to transformational
leadership. 
While some scholars have mentioned communication briefly or listed communication
among many other elements of transformational leadership such as Konorti and Eng (2008)
who state transformational leaders “can articulate well” (p. 16), they stop short of claiming
communication as a critical ingredient to successful transformational leadership.  
This evidenced-based approach demonstrates transformational leadership through
communication and investigates the significance of transformational rhetoric. Obama’s
transformational leadership style is assessed through his rhetoric, which contributes to the
field of communication by raising awareness of this significant element essential for
successful transformational leadership. I advocate the inclusion of rhetorical techniques in
the analysis of transformational leadership style. 
In this thesis I will critically analyze the use of communication in transformational
leadership through Obama’s rhetoric in order to provide evidence that his communication is
that of the transformational leadership model. I selected these speeches because at the time
(2007-2008), the United States Presidential campaigns were underway and the lead
 4

candidates were covered daily by national news, which piqued my interest as a leader (a
former Naval Officer and currently the supervisor for more than 20 personnel), as a Political
Science scholar, and as a communicator, Director of Public Affairs for ten U.S. Naval
Hospitals in the Western Pacific. This research provides the amassed evidence to support my
argument and defend my interpretation. This case study asserts that communication is the
enabling element and the key contributor for effective transformational leadership. While
transformational leadership is explored thoroughly in the literature, few have examined it
through the perspective of communication.
By examining six of Obama’s speeches (from both his candidacy and presidency), I
demonstrate that transformational leadership can be achieved through transformational
rhetoric and establish that communication is the axle for successful transformational
leadership. Through a critical analysis of Obama’s rhetoric, I contend that the current
research on transformational leadership inadequately weighs the importance of
communication as one of its key elements. Furthermore, I argue that transformational
leadership necessitates communication in order for it to be an effective leadership model.  
The purpose of this study is to expand upon current transformational leadership
theories by augmenting this method of leadership with the essential ingredient of
communication. Through a case study of Obama’s speeches, I demonstrate how he utilized
the rhetorical strategies of an inspirational, motivational, visionary, and charismatic leader,
who promoted shared values, goals, and responsibilities in order to improve the lives of
individuals through innovation and other such components agreed upon by researchers to be
formulaic of transformational leadership (Barbuto & Burbach, 2006; Bradford & Cohen,
1984; Bromley & Kirschner-Bromley, 2007; Kezar & Eckel, 2008; Rowold & Heinitz, 2007;
Seltzer & Bass, 1990). I put forth that Obama’s rhetoric within his transformational
leadership style is what actualized change and transformation among voters.  
Obama transformed the United States when he was the first African American elected
president; therefore, he is an ideal figure to evaluate transformational leadership through a
rhetorical perspective. I argue that utilization of transformational rhetoric was the backbone
of Obama’s unique ability to appeal to multiple races, generations, social, and economic
groups – tailoring or transforming his messages to meet the desires and needs of individuals
within a diverse population. Sometimes through general language, Obama left ideals and
 5

goals open to interpretation, which fostered the opportunity to petition the masses. This idea
of generating a collective direction, motivating the masses to move and take action toward a
unified goal, are characteristics of transformational leadership, and I would assert are also
elements of transformational rhetoric.
Since Obama comes from a multicultural family and had academic success at an Ivy
League school through scholarships, he is living proof that the American Dream is possible
for all citizens. He lived the American Dream himself, so he was the perfect candidate to
foster the right environment for success for other Americans. If Obama could get to his
dream of being President, so could other American citizens achieve their own dreams if they
followed him, his lead, and his example, because “America is the place where there is the
opportunity for an ordinary person possessing grit and determination to make a better life”
(Rowland & Jones, 2007, p. 430). Obama doesn’t just talk the talk, he “offers himself as the
embodiment of his own message, the one-man rainbow coalition” (Drehle, 2008). He often
communicates and promotes the hopeful idea that the American Dream is possible for
everyone, “We are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great – a
promise that is the only reason I am standing here tonight” (Obama, 2008, August 28). Since
Obama is not the typical mold of a presidential candidate, he acknowledges his uniqueness
and supports it through his rhetoric, saying “I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for
this office. I don’t fit the typical pedigree, and I haven’t spent my career in the halls of
Washington” (Obama, 2008, August 28). This self-reflection about his atypical journey to
the top advances his message that the American Dream is open to everyone regardless of
their background and furthers his vision of change as a means to enhance that opportunity.   
The power of Obama’s appeal to the masses may have been that he rhetorically
positioned himself as an individual who lived out the American Dream. The “American
Dream is the idea that Americans are on a progressive journey to a better society” (Rowland
& Jones, 2007, p. 430). Through Obama’s own American Dream story, he laid the
foundation of hope that if he could do it; other Americans could too. Therefore, he was able
to use his biography to influence the direction of the nation. This idea of using an
individual’s personal story to motivate the population is referred to as enactment. Obama is
the quintessential enactment of the American Dream. In The Rhetorical Act, Karlyn Kohrs
Campbell (1996) explains the concept of enactment as when “the speaker or writer is proof
 6

of the claim he or she is making. Enactment is both proof and a way to present evidence
vividly” (pp. 309-310), because the audience witnesses the evidence firsthand, enhancing the
power of the message. Enactment may be an authoritative element of leadership by adding
credibility and validity because there is consistency between actions and oration, which, I
argue leads to increased trust by followers and therefore more effective leadership. Obama’s
experiences, multicultural heritage, his education, and other elements of his life story make
him the enactment of his message because he is a living example of the American Dream, an
ideal about “ordinary people who accomplish extraordinary things . . . . because they embody
values consistent with the progressive ideology of traditional liberalism” (Rowland & Jones,
2007, p. 430).
The American Dream can be enacted through different forms morally and
materialistically, “In this iconic way to reenchant, rescue, and reinvigorate each party’s sense
of purity, innocence, and goodness” (Elahi & Cos, 2005, p. 454). Obama uses his unique
heritage to appeal to a multiracial country. His enactment of the American Dream is
orchestrated through inclusiveness of the “immigrant American” identity via his own
immigrant heritage coupled with his immigrant narrative, which provides an American
perspective that satisfies the core of the American Dream. Rather than undermining
America’s identity, the immigrant American reaffirms American ideals that no matter what
your background- you can climb toward success in this country (Elahi & Cos, 2005; Honig,
1998). Obama “spoke as and for the immigrant as an agent of renewal” (Elahi & Cos, 2005,
p. 460), with his personal bi-racial heritage likely establishing his credibility as one who has
achieved the American Dream and therefore fostered trust among a diverse population. 
Obama attempts to deconstruct the perspectives of racial demographics in the hope of
bridging the gap between them and to work out this black versus white tension. Since he is
bi-racial himself, “Obama is the unique and sole embodiment of the movement that has
coalesced around him” (Renshon, 2008, p. 412), so it is poetically fitting and appropriate that
he is the enactment of such a union. According to Rowland and Jones (2007),
The protagonist must be an ordinary person, who accomplishes great things
because his/her actions are motivated by values he/she shares with other
Americans. The ordinary person in a sense becomes extraordinary, not because
he/she is inherently heroic, but because he/she fully enacts the values at the heart
of the American Dream. (p. 431)
 7

This is transformational leadership because it is transforming the idea of separate, segregated

races into one united front for the sake of the nation; Americans are stronger together than
apart. Obama, having both black and white heritage, has the ability to make his message
resonate with both races.
Obama’s career path and academic achievements also exemplified American ethos,
specifically if you work hard, maintain high moral and family values, then the combination
of dedication and opportunity will lead to prosperity regardless of your gender, race, religion
or family background. “Obama was able to create a strong sense of identification, not only
because of his own personal identity but also because he chose to emphasize the
interconnectedness of values shared by all Americans, including faith, freedom, family,
tolerance, and patriotism” (Rowland & Jones, 2007, p. 437), therefore he utilized the
American Dream as the linchpin to his own personal story to connect with American people
also seeking to achieve success through the American Dream. Just as important, he uses his
own background as the bridge to unite races in an effort to connect Americans.
Though there are various theories and methods on leadership as referenced above,
this thesis will focus on transformational rhetoric as the primary communication component
of transformational leadership. I argue that Obama is a transformational leader, using
transformational rhetoric with a strong African American jeremiad influence.
The remainder of this thesis is outlined as follows: Chapter 2 provides an explanation
of the method utilized in this thesis, presents a review of literature in transformational
leadership as well as definitions for the American jeremiad and African American jeremiad.
Chapter 3 consists of a critical analysis of six of Obama’s speeches providing a case study
for transformational rhetoric and then a brief discussion on this study. Lastly, Chapter 4
summarizes, reviews assumptions, examines the limitations and implications of this study,
and then offers recommendations for future research. 
 
 8

CHAPTER 2

THE LANGUAGE OF A LEADER

This chapter will explain the method utilized herein, provide a literature review, brief
overview of Obama’s rhetoric and leadership, definitions for transactional leadership,
transformational leadership, charisma, and explain the American jeremiad and African
American jeremiad.  

METHOD
The method for this case study is a rhetorical criticism of six of Obama’s speeches. I
identify and read a variety of speeches by Obama multiple times, which revealed that he
utilized transformational rhetoric to influence and persuade voters. Once the speeches were
identified, my methodology began with reading the text and identifying trends found across
all six speeches, which exposed both the type of communication and the style of leadership
Obama used. Then I classified reoccurring themes, which illustrated how these elements
contribute to his transformational leadership and had the potential to further the field of
communication. Next I conducted a literature review to provide the background and context
as the foundation for extracting common themes, messages, and communication theories
used throughout these speeches. My research process included an historical overview of the
rhetor, the content in the speeches, and reexamination of the artifacts to analyze techniques,
patterns, and themes within his rhetoric.  
The three primary theories I will employ to support this case study of Obama’s
rhetoric include: transformational leadership, transformational rhetoric, and the African
American jeremiad. As mentioned in Chapter 1, transformational leadership is a style of
leadership that fosters a mutually rewarding vision, where the leader inspires and motivates
the group toward a movement. Transformational rhetoric utilizes language that motivates,
inspires and changes behavior toward the mutually beneficial goal of the leader. The African
American jeremiad is communication that takes on the authority of a preacher or prophetic
figure, tapping into an individual’s moral and ethical psyche to motivate from a place of a
 9

person’s conscience and guilt in an effort to right was is wrong and obtain redemption from
sin. This study furthers the idea of rhetorical leadership, or “leadership exerted through talk
or persuasion” (Dorsey, 2002, p. 3) as criteria for transformational leadership. Rhetorical
leadership has been defined as “the process of discovering, articulating, and sharing the
available means of influence in order to motivate human agents in a particular situation”
(Dorsey, 2002, p. 9) and that definition applies to Obama’s rhetoric and leadership; his style
transformed, prompted a movement, and resulted in changed behaviors. This research
examines transformational rhetoric more closely to define this type of communication within
a leadership model, providing a specific skill for individuals in leadership positions to utilize
when attempting to implement a new policy, transition, or change on a large scale within an
organization.
Of interest, Obama made significant efforts to communicate his story and point of
view on his road to the White House through two books: Dreams from My Father
(1995/2004) and The Audacity of Hope (2006). Although this thesis does not dissect the
rhetoric in either of these books, it is clear that various communication mediums were
significant contributors to Obama’s transformational leadership.
Not only did his political rhetoric contribute to his campaign, but also his rhetoric on
race and religious views played a significant role in his communication efforts. In 2005, he
argued “faith should have a greater role in public discourse” (History Central, 2008). His
race and religion often became points of high interest and controversy driving his candidacy,
forcing him to address these issues resulting in the now renowned A More Perfect Union,
also known as “The Race Speech,” which was delivered March 18, 2008 to assess race in
America.
This case study examines rhetoric primarily from the following six speeches: Out of
Many, One (Obama, 2004, July 27), A More Perfect Union, “The Race Speech” (Obama,
2008, March 18), The American Promise Acceptance Speech (Obama, 2008, August 28),
Election Night Victory speech (Obama, 2008, November 4), Inaugural Address (Obama,
2009, January 20), and Remarks of President Barack Obama—Address to the Joint Session
of Congress (Obama, 2009, February 24). I have chosen speeches mostly from the
campaign trail to best depict that his rhetoric indeed contributed to the historic election of the
first black president of the United States.
 10

A brief summary of each of these speeches follows. In his Out of Many, One speech,
Obama discusses gratitude for his family heritage, promotes the greatness of America
because of its faith that it can achieve whatever it sets its mind to, addresses areas of concern
where America needs to improve, particularly in the area of unemployment, outlines John
Kerry’s biography, acknowledges that although America is a compilation of a variety of
races, it is in fact one nation, one people with the same hope and ends the speech by
endorsing Kerry as the Presidential candidate for the democratic party. Many of these
unification and hope messages are carried forward and utilized in Obama’s own campaign
slogans during his 2008 run for President.
A More Perfect Union, “The Race Speech” aims to unite Americans by embracing
their differences in race while addressing the controversy that arose regarding Obama’s
religion. Through a variety of anecdotal stories of discrimination, segregation, and historical
milestones, he addressed the spectrum of perspectives between blacks and whites in
America, while encouraging citizens to embrace the progress thus far and unify in order to
grow stronger as a nation in equality and opportunity for all.
The American Promise Acceptance speech introduces his case for change,
campaigning for America to divert from the last eight years, criticizes President George W.
Bush’s Administration, and promotes his vision that America could do better and be a better
nation. He chastises fiscal failures (predominately due to the cost of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan and also due to unemployment rates, he condemns the lack of innovation and
progress, and reprimands energy waste during Bush’s term. Obama’s speech promises to
improve all these areas, depicting a better future through anecdotal narratives of war veterans
and family struggles that demonstrate the American spirit in spite of these challenges.
Obama’s Election Night Victory speech was one of hope, possibility, unification, and
promise that change for the better was coming. He sought to empower Americans while also
seeking their support in making his promises for new energy, new jobs, new schools, and less
war into a reality. He sought to instill hope, optimism, and confidence through his “yes we
can” slogan, stimulating support that together America could change and improve.
In his Inaugural Address speech, Obama discusses the collective failure of the nation
in recent years regarding health care, energy, and education, but promotes a revitalized hope
and unity of purpose that together with America’s virtue, they could transform the nation in
 11

order to achieve the God-given promise of equality, freedom, and happiness. He explains
how the uniqueness and diversity of America is its greatest strength.
In President Obama’s Address to Joint Session of Congress, he encourages citizens to
come together to take responsibility for the challenges the country is encountering. He
expresses a belief that Americans can rebuild and recover by taking action to build a new
foundation through creation and innovation, but warns it will take sacrifice and hard work to
solve the problems they are facing. He inspires citizens to have a renewed spirit in order to
transform the nation into a greater place for the next generation.
I assert that transformational leadership was his method, while transformational
rhetoric was his style of communication. Although Obama utilized a variety of mediums for
communicating his vision of change, such as town hall meetings, debates, television
commercials, a website, marketing through posters, bumper stickers, other speeches not
included in this research, and one of his major rhetorical mediums was his robust use of
social media in his campaign; I have limited my analysis to the above mentioned speeches to
support my argument that his communication facilitated transformational leadership.
Obama’s speeches provide a dynamic and virtually unexplored resource through
which to better understand transformational leadership in practice. These speeches are rich
examples that reveal meaning behind the rhetoric and illustrate the shaping of
transformational leadership, while providing a case study to advance the notion of
transformational rhetoric.  
The relevance of communication, specifically transformational rhetoric, is that it has
a direct correlation to leadership. Communication reveals a leader’s character, vision,
political views, and so forth, equipping listeners with information to decide if they want to
follow the leader or not. Therefore teaching effective communication may bridge the gap
between simply defining transformational leadership to actually arming people with the skills
necessary to become transformational leaders.

LITERATURE REVIEW: OBAMA’S REDEMPTION

RHETORIC AND LEADERSHIP LEGACY
Many scholars have dissected and analyzed Obama’s rhetoric, thus the following
provides a brief overview of research regarding his communication modalities. Murphy
(2011) explored the idea that Obama carried the biblical themes of Exodus into his campaign
 12

rhetoric, contending that Obama’s discourse likened himself to Joshua, who led the chosen
people through “oppression, liberation and redemption” (p. 392). Just as Joshua endured
slavery, suffering, and trials, so too, Obama puts the journey of the American Dream into this
biblical metaphor and inspires voters not to be “a people in bondage, but a nation on the
move” (p. 388). Through his godly oratory of hope and change and through his African
American jeremiad, Obama provided a powerful political narrative to create a new covenant,
promising a better life for voters if he were to be elected.
Cox (2012) analyzed Obama’s 2010 State of the Union Address showing he used
journey metaphors to get voters to move into action during the economic crisis. The financial
collapse was “framed as a speed bump, slowing—but not halting—the nation’s progress
towards its destiny” (p. 11). Obama attempted to restore faith and confidence in the
economy, fostering hope for a better financial situation through movement in a different
direction. Any hindrance toward progress in the political journey was determined to be
disruptive and metaphoric language to this end was used such as obstacles, weight,
mountains, burden, and other such terms that imparted delays in the journey. He was able to
promote changes that weren’t necessarily popular, such as his healthcare reform efforts.
Dilliplane (2012) assessed Obama’s A More Perfect Union, “The Race Speech” to
show the “historical and contemporary dynamics of race, oratory, and politics in America”
(p. 129), and how Obama traversed these challenges through rhetoric that resonated with a
broad audience since he himself embodied American diversity, so he possessed the
credibility to “speak from and to diverse perspectives” (p. 135). Dilliplane’s research
focused on two themes that combined Obama’s personal destiny with America’s destiny:
“toward a more perfect union” and “out of many, we are one” from which the nation could
continue toward the promise of the American Dream.
Frank (2011) claims there is a reoccurring pattern in Obama’s discourse regarding a
“struggle with binaries: reason/faith, individual/community, security/liberty, war
fighting/peace building” (p. 604). He also discusses Obama’s rhetorical signatures, which
are established over time presenting narratives tailored to a particular time and precise
audience becoming “distinctly rhetorical” (p. 615). Obama’s rhetorical signature had a
“prophetic expression of Christianity, a belief that God is still working in the world” (p. 609)
 13

but that humans are flawed and evil as evidence by historical tragedy (slavery). Obama
encouraged voters to choose a better history, one rooted in universal values.
Arnett (2011) researched the idea of public civic rhetoric, connecting public speech to
the community, and how the tensions of provincial (local) and cosmopolitan moral demands
can come to terms in a communal common center. He explains that a communal center is
not consensus, but rather, contradictory individuals and groups bringing together a variety of
ideas and opinions to participate in the same conversation. This research acknowledges
Obama’s understanding of “the fragile nature of human community and the necessity of
holding persons of difference together with minimal, not maximal agreements” (p. 658).
Civic rhetoric must instill “a sense of direction while acknowledging and taking into account
diversity of opinion in the public arena” (p. 632). Civic rhetoric does not guarantee
resolution, but attempts to influence in an effort to continue the conversation while keeping
the community intact.
Rowland (2011) explained how Obama restored the idea that public reason and public
argument continues to be an influential authority toward the American Dream, which is
achieved by citizens working together to foster a better community. “Obama recognizes that
the liberal variant of both American Exceptionalism and the American Dream implicitly
depends upon faith in public reason” (p. 705), so he worked to transcend rhetoric in order to
truly explain the fundamental policy for his health care reform. He needed to change the
“political culture away from a focus on sound bites, the 24-hour news cycle, and short-term
political calculations” (p. 703), in order to address the complex issue of the health care crisis.
McPhail and McPhail (2011), authors with a similar background to Obama’s, probe
into his rhetoric between race and responsibility. The authors sought to discover and
comprehend multiracial rhetoric from the African American perspective, but are concerned
by Obama’s omission to place black men’s failures “in the context of intentional
discrimination, of sustained miseducation, of historical and modern racism” (p. 680), and of
the conflict between denying himself while simultaneously striving to be a “man.” They
assessed Obama’s discourse for “racial reconciliation and transformation,” while hoping to
rescript “rhetorics of race and racism” (p. 675). Obama’s rhetoric
Admonished black men for their failures, he did so at a time when the
institutional barriers that had limited black achievement had ostensibly been
 14

dismantled and the vestiges of slavery and the realities of segregation . . . had
largely disappeared. (McPhail & McPhail, 2011, p. 674)
The authors recognize Obama’s awareness of “the limitations of a rhetoric that erases race,
and the possibilities of one that interrogates its complicities, contradictions, and possibilities
for dialogic coherence” (McPhail & McPhail, 2011, p. 676). The authors acknowledge
barriers and circumstances that make life more challenging to those less fortunate than
Obama, who in later rhetoric shows “empathy and an acceptance . . . of those young black
men whose experiences and opportunities are shaped by historical and social forces different
than those that defined his life chances” (McPhail & McPhail, 2011, p. 685), while he
compares his life with theirs to uphold both their individuality and his own. The authors
contend that although Obama raised awareness of race, class, and gender, he fails to provide
solid strategies for action to transform issues of race.
Ivie (2011) explores the idea of a rhetorical application of “strategic ambiguity” (p.
727) with a purpose as applied to political diplomacy and the president’s challenge with
“accommodating the actuality of war and pursuing the promise of peace” (p. 728).
According to Ivie, Obama was able to transform the war on terrorism rhetoric into a struggle
against radicalism in an effort to replace skepticism and despair with his optimistic theme of
hope. Obama’s rhetoric of American Exceptionalism and ambiguity functioned to transform
the political conversation from war-fighting to peace-building.
Terrill (2011) discusses the controversial reaction and the irony of Obama receiving
the Nobel Peace Prize while the U.S. was involved in two wars and how he balanced his
speech providing content that was equal parts war and equal parts peace through his vague
rhetoric of a moral compass. He portrayed war and peace as “an interdependent coupling
fundamental to a realistic view of human relations” (p. 768). Obama promoted a desire for
alternatives to forceful conflict through diplomacy, a moral compass (the Golden Rule), and
trust in human progress, but he also acknowledged just wars. His ambiguous rhetoric
provided a provocative blurring of the relationship between war and peace.
The above summary of research spans the gamut of Obama’s gift of oratory.
However, I take a new approach by examining Obama’s rhetoric as it is applied to
transformational leadership. I hope to further the study of communication, specifically in the
area of transformational leadership by examining how communication really is the crux of
 15

transformational leadership. I hope this research will bring awareness to rhetoric as a tool
and tactic for transformational leadership.

LEADERSHIP 
Is leadership inherent or is it a learned skill? Leadership has been studied,
researched, defined, and redefined. Literature often lists specific characteristics evident in,
contributing to, displayed in, and ultimately required for leadership to be inherent. However,
other research supports leadership as a tool and skill that can be taught. In this case,
individuals must discern what components comprise leadership and the best approach to
learn leadership skills - such as through on the job experience, academic study, mentorship,
training courses, and other such teaching approaches to leadership. This research assumes
leadership can be taught and will focus on the communication component of leadership,
specifically communication used in transformational leadership.
There is both “assigned leadership,” where one is placed in a position of leadership,
and “emergent leadership” (Eby, Cader & Noble, 2003; Sorrentino & Field, 1986) where an
individual is perceived “as the most influential member of a group or organization, regardless
of the individual’s title” (Northouse, 2007, p. 5) and therefore ascends to or assumes the
leadership role. This is an important distinction because election into a position requires
action (voting) on the part of followers, so leaders must strive to change not only values,
attitudes, beliefs, and motives, but also must move followers to act (Krishnan, 2001). In
other words, followers were led or persuaded toward a particular direction. This research
strives to show successful leadership is not possible simply through transformational
leadership traits, but is more effective when accompanied by compelling rhetoric.
Communication skills are a significant contributing factor to obtaining a sought after
leadership position- either emergent or assigned. One could argue that even on the most
basic level of communication, an individual is ultimately striving to influence the receiving
party by what and how they articulate the message. 
There are a plethora of leadership theories and methods within academia. These
include: trait approach (Bass, 1990; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Lord, DeVader, & Alliger,
1986; Mann, 1959; Northouse, 2007); situational approach (Blanchard, 2000; Lee-Kelley,
2002; Lee-Kelley & Loong, 2003; Norris &Vecchio, 1992; Northouse, 2007; Vecchio, 1987;
 16

Vroom & Jago, 2007); skills approach, which includes technical, conceptual, and human skill
(Ackoff, 1999; Northouse, 2007); contingency theory (Fiedler, 1964, 1967; Fiedler &
Chemers, 1984; Fiedler & Garcia, 1987; Northouse, 2007) and many others. Although
occasionally these leadership theories have similarities or overlap in various areas, the focus
of this research is on transformational leadership, which “can be used to describe a wide
range of leadership, from very specific attempts to influence followers on a one-to-one level
to very broad attempts to influence whole organizations and even entire cultures”
(Northouse, 2007, p. 176). Transformational leadership is evident throughout Obama’s
speeches; thus, this analysis shows how communication contributed to his successful
campaign as well as how his persuasive rhetoric influenced policy changes once in office,
such as successfully repealing the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy in the military and enacting
the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, as the national standard for health
insurance. 
Transformational leadership is not new to the academic discussion of leadership
(Ackoff, 1999; Amernic, Craig, & Tourish, 2007; Barbuto & Burbach, 2006; Bass & Avolio,
1990a, 1990b, 1994; Gillespie & Mann, 2004; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Humphreys &
Einstein, 2003; Kirkbride, 2006; Krishnan, 2001; Konorti & Eng, 2008; Seltzer & Bass,
1990; Tichy & Devanna, 1986). Although an individual may possess the traits outlined in
the definition of transformational leadership such as charisma (a magnetic personality that
arouses enthusiasm and support for a public figure), innovation (a new idea or perspective),
intellectual influence (the ability to appeal to a group logically and cognitively), high moral
standards (engaging a person’s inner principles of right and wrong), a visionary (presenting a
clear idea of an imagined future), and other such descriptive qualifications; unless these traits
are properly coupled with communication that resonates with the intended audience then the
goal of transformation is unlikely to be achieved. The fact that such characteristics are
evident in an individual may not necessarily translate or equate to transformational
leadership. However, if one can properly apply these traits through effective
communication, then transformational leadership can be adopted, not just defined. The fields
of communication and leadership can then be viewed and utilized as practical and functional
skills, rather than ambiguous observed attributes. However, what has not been focused on
before is the inclusion of communication as one of the fundamental skills or traits that define
 17

and compose transformational leadership. I assert that in addition to the traditional definition
of transformational leadership, communication is the crucial element that allows
transformational leadership to be enacted.   
While I will not evaluate every type of leadership approach available in the literature,
it is imperative to differentiate between transformational leadership and transactional
leadership because many of the contributing factors to these styles overlap and are often
mistaken for each other (Bass, 1997; Bass & Avolio, 1990b; Bass, Avolio, & Atwater,
1996). Some scholars view transactional and transformational leadership as two ends of a
continuum (Bass, 1985), while others view them as independent and distinct leadership
processes (Burns, 1978; Seltzer & Bass, 1990). The following section will define and
distinguish between these two leadership styles in order to provide clarification.

TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP
Transactional leadership is a performance-based approach to leadership. Compliance
by the follower is reinforced by management, either by actively searching for or passively
waiting for deviations, then taking corrective actions (Hater & Bass, 1988). Leaders “focus
on mistakes, irregularities, and deviations from standards” (Gillespie & Mann, 2004, p. 601)
in order to reward or rebuke subordinates accordingly.  
Leaders “who identify the needs of their followers and exchange rewards for
acceptable results are regarded as transactional” (Felfe, Tartler, & Lipmann, 2004, p.
5). Transactional leadership is a fair negotiation to mutual agreement through a discussion to
clarify tasks, responsibilities and expectations, while establishing a win-win where the leader
gets the task accomplished and the subordinate gets rewarded for the work. 
Transactional leadership, also known as “contingent reward” (Gillespie & Mann,
2004, p. 591), does not require a high level of trust like transformational leadership since
rewards are based on the follower’s performance (transactional agreements) rather than
relational mutual trust. Transactional leadership entails a “quality of exchange between
superiors and followers” (Felfe et al., 2004, p. 266). It includes establishing tasks and
responsibilities, with the leader providing a reward or negative consequence depending on if
the requirements were achieved. In other words, transactional leadership is a performance-
based relationship.
 18

This idea of gaining compliance through performance rewards or, conversely,

punishing poor performance are common managerial styles. However, according to
Kirkbride (2006), transactional leadership styles “are useful for stable state situations but are
less useful for organizations undergoing environmental turbulence or rapid change” (p. 23).  
Transactional leadership is a negotiated business agreement where a defined quantity or
quality of work completed, results in compensation such as a financial reward, time off
reward, positional reward and so forth. Followers perform their duties in order to obtain the
reward, not necessarily because of trust or alignment with the leader’s vision. Conversely,
transformational leadership is primarily based on trust.  

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP
Unlike transactional leadership, transformational leadership is not a performance-
based model but rather is based on trust between the leader and follower. The leader
attempts to meet the individual desires (i.e., individualized consideration) to exhibit the
leader is invested in developing the follower and thus fosters a team mentality and builds
trust (Gillespie & Mann, 2004). In 1978, James Burns advanced the idea of transformational
leadership, which was further developed by Bernard Bass (1985). Utilizing business
executives, military officers, and political leaders, they showed a transformational leader
endeavors to fulfill the needs of the follower. When referring to transformational leadership,
the term “stems from the ability to inspire and develop people as resources and move them to
a higher state of existence, transforming them in the process” (Bromley & Kirschner-
Bromley, 2007, p. 54). Transformational leadership inspires followers (Seltzer & Bass,
1990), builds shared responsibility through common vision (Bradford & Cohen, 1984), and
fosters organizational values and goals which surpass self-interests (Bass, 1985; Gillespie &
Mann, 2004). Transformational leadership is the ideal approach in a Presidential campaign
as the candidate is striving to rally the masses through inspirational oratory in order to
accumulate votes.  
Bass (1985) furthered the idea of transformational leadership, by defining the terms
and characteristics that have evolved over the years. According to Barbuto Jr. and Burbach
(2006), transformational leadership includes these traits: “charisma, intellectual stimulation,
and individualized consideration” (p. 52). Charisma relates to individuals’ special abilities,
 19

vision, and sense of mission; intellectual stimulation is to arouse creativity, innovation and
new approaches as solutions to organizational problems; and individualized consideration
refers to the development of individuals, where the leader actively listens and mentors
followers to encourage their growth and advancement (Seltzer & Bass, 1990). The term
idealized influence was also added as a characteristic of transformational leaders, signifying
the leader is a role model based on competence and moral integrity, which results in follower
admiration, trust and respect; this term is often substituted for charisma (Antonakis, Avolio,
& Sivasubramaniam, 2003). Over the years, inspirational motivation was added (Bass &
Avolio, 1990a), which is to create an optimistic and attractive vision by providing a
challenge while fostering meaning in the work (Bass & Avolio, 1989; Bromley & Kirschner-
Bomley, 2007; Flefe et al., 2004). In summary, transformational leaders are commonly
described as possessing traits such as charisma, having a knack for developing subordinates,
exuding inspirational motivation, stimulating the masses intellectually, and are visionaries
(Barbuto & Burbach, 2006; Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978), but rarely do scholars list strong
communication skills as a trait found in or necessary for transformational leadership.
Although the terminology used to define transformational leadership has evolved over the
years, I contend a fundamental element has not-- communication.
During the 2008 presidential election, there were high expectations and high hopes
for America to become better than its current state. That “better” was defined differently for
individuals; some felt U.S. employment rates needed to be better, others felt healthcare
needed improvement, some wanted the government’s environmental efforts to improve, but
most wanted a regime change with a new perspective. Fatigued by the “stay the course”
mentality set by the Bush administration for eight years, citizens were hungry for intellectual
stimulation that challenged individual and organizational beliefs and values, in an attempt to
redirect thinking (Kezar & Eckel, 2008). Once minds had been changed, the next step was to
encourage followers to take action to implement that change. In other words, Obama
endeavored to activate behavioral change.  
In summary, the differences between transformational and transactional leadership
are clear. Transformational leadership entails a rallying, unifying, motivating, team
approach to leadership with a collective approach to pursue a common vision. While
transactional leadership is a performance-based reward system with individuals seeking
 20

compensation for their efforts. But the most significant difference between the two
leadership styles is transformational leadership has different goals than transactional
leadership, that being change. Transformational leadership attempts to change individual
perspectives and actions, the goal, the vision, the process, and ultimately the organization.
Such changes are explained through the leader’s transformational rhetoric, communication
rich with vision and purpose.  Although often used interchangeably or misunderstood as the
same, the difference between transformational and transactional leadership, is that they are
really two distinct and different styles of leadership at the opposite ends of the continuum as
proposed by Bass (1985).  

CHARISMA 
Although Charismatic Leadership (Conger & Kanugo, 1998; Howell & Frost, 1989)
is a model in itself; in this thesis, I simply reference charisma as an attribute of
transformational leadership. Charisma is one of the characteristics and contributing factors
of transformational leadership, “the two terms of charismatic and transformational leadership
are often used interchangeably” (Rowold & Heinitz, 2007, p. 130). Charisma warrants
further evaluation as it is revealed through communication, but “Both transformational and
charismatic leaders are agents of change. In addition to the formulation of a vision, strong
emotional ties between the leader and the led are necessary in order to change followers’
belief systems and attitudes” (p. 122), which is applicable to this case study since much of
Obama’s rhetoric revolved around the idea of change.
Charismatic leaders are defined as possessing high self-esteem, an idealized vision
and an ability to motivate others. They are viewed as trustworthy, having high values and
morals, are credible, innovative, are perceived as or are actually powerful or esteemed, and
are high self-monitors which contributes to effective messaging and convincing
communications (Anderson, 1990; Conger, 1989; Gardner & Avolio, 1998; Shamir, 1991;
Snyder, 1987). 
Confirmation that Obama was a figure of transformational significance is evident by
the mass media coverage where he was widely revered as charismatic (Nye, 2008; Zernike,
2008). His charisma later evolved into Obama’s widespread celebrity status (Wolffe, 2009).
Some perceived “Obama’s enormous celebrity as a weakness – workhorse vs. show horse –
 21

but celebrity has its benefits” (Drehle, 2008), especially in a presidential campaign in
America where pop culture often carries wide audience interest. Therefore his
transformational leadership attributes tie nicely into his overarching narrative promoting the
American Dream, which commonly is thought of as being rich and famous (Kellner, 2009;
Liu, 2008).
Charismatic leadership typically falls into two categories: prophetic or an activist.
Charismatic leaders are exceptional in communicating a “prophetic” vision or exhibit
excellent practical leadership skills as an “activist” (Tucker, 1968). Obama demonstrated
both of these characteristics. His prophetic vision was established early on with his
campaign slogans of “Hope” and “Change” which he elaborated on in his various speeches
referenced in this research. His charismatic, prophetic and activist communication aligns
with the African American jeremiad styles of communication which will be discussed later.
His activist trait was displayed in his remarks to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs Apr.
23, 2007 called “The American Moment,”
We must lead the world, by deed and example. We must lead by building a 21st
century military to ensure the security of our people and advance the security of
all people. We must lead by marshalling a global effort to stop the spread of the
world’s most dangerous weapons. We must lead by building and strengthening
the partnerships and alliances necessary to meet our common challenges and
defeat our common threats. And America must lead by reaching out to all those
living disconnected lives of despair in the world’s forgotten corners. (Obama,
2007)
Obama’s activism is clear in this sample, by repeating “we must lead” in each sentence he
promotes the idea of a movement and puts forth an agenda for national change to accomplish
the goal of making America better. 
Charisma can be somewhat subjective, so determining if a leader is charismatic is a
point of debate among scholars. Some feel a leader is considered charismatic only if
described as such by followers (House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1991), while others assert
certain attributes and qualities found within the leader are what validate him/her as
charismatic (Conger, 1989; House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1991; Shamir, 1991; Weierter,
1997). However, Gardner and Avolio (1998) explain “charisma may arise from the leader’s
behavior, follower attributes, or some combination of the two” (p. 34). Along these lines,
some contend that ethos, or an ethical appeal, dictate charisma because people tend to believe
people they trust (Ramage & Bean, 1998). Rather than defining traits, some scholars assess
 22

charisma through mutual core values of a group, organization or society, which stimulates
follower identification with the leader (Shamir, 1995).  
Unlike the research on transformational leadership, the skill and necessity of
communication is prominently acknowledged in the literature on charismatic leadership. As
a matter of fact, some scholars define or distinguish charismatic leaders by their ability to
articulate and create meaning that inspires others to pursue their vision (Conger & Kanungo,
1987; Gardner & Avolio, 1998). Charismatic leaders are generally expressive, employing
rhetoric to persuade, influence, and mobilize others (Bass, 1985; Gardner & Avolio,
1998). Additionally, an ability to communicate emotions may be considered the key to
successfully inspiring others to follow (Freidman, Riggio, & Casella, 1988). So if charisma
includes communication and if charisma is an element of transformational leadership – logic
would presume that transformational leaders must possess communication skills as well.  
Transformational leadership includes an element of charisma, which offers a “vision
and a sense of mission, instilling pride in and among the group, and gaining respect and
trust” (Humphreys & Einstein, 2003, p. 7). All of these, a vision, mission, a sense of pride,
respect, and trust, require some form of communication.  
As mentioned earlier, transformational leadership empowers, develops trust,
motivates and attempts to transform the values of the culture, but the method for achieving
these things is through communication. As Dorsey (2002) suggests, “Presidents who can
gracefully adapt their performance to balance both their virtues of thought and character in
the moment will be seen as prudent leaders,” (p. 17); performance suggests impromptu
communication adapted for the audience.  
Speculation that gifted children who endure early family traumas, such as the loss of
a father, often compensate for such losses by developing a sense of mission in life and self-
reliance, resulting in charismatic leaders (Bass, 1985). Charismatic leaders were typically
expected to excel in various realms of life early on, often from families with difficult
circumstances, and partook in leadership roles at a young age (Avolio, 1994). Gardner and
Avolio (1998) assert that “high expectations, encouragement, success in meeting life
challenges and leadership roles that many charismatics experience early on foster a strong
identity as a leader” (p. 37); Obama’s background certainly is consistent with these elements
of a charismatic leader.  
 23

Obama’s life story parallels this theory of high achievement to compensate for trials
in life. He had divorced parents, is multiethnic, and was raised in a middleclass family – all
of which fit the challenging childhood piece often affiliated with charismatic leaders. In
addition, he became very accomplished, graduated from two Ivy League schools, Columbia
University in 1983 and later Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School in 1991. An
author, his first book Dreams From my Father was published in 1995. Obama was elected
into the Illinois State Senate in 1996, re-elected in 1998 and 2002. In 2005 Obama was
sworn in as the only African American in the U.S. Senate and only the fifth Black U.S.
Senator in the past 100 years (Harrell, 2010; Ripley, 2004). In 2006, his second book, the
Audacity of Hope was published. He formally announced his run for President in February
2007 and only a year later, on February 5, 2008, Obama won 13 states on Super
Tuesday. On December 15, 2008, Obama’s successes culminated with his winning the
presidency over Senator John McCain 365 to 173 electoral votes (Whitehouse.gov, 2008).  
I hope to demonstrate that much of his leadership success was achieved not only due
to his charismatic personality and transformational leadership style, but was fundamentally
rooted in his communication. In addition to his transformational leadership style, a key
communication component that led to Obama’s successful election is found in his use of the
African American jeremiad.  

AMERICAN AND AFRICAN AMERICAN JEREMIAD

The following section will delve into the American jeremiad and African American
jeremiad. It is necessary to examine these in Obama’s transformational leadership and
transformational rhetoric as the presidential campaign set the right circumstances for
implementing the American jeremiad, a type of patriot rhetoric, while Obama’s multiracial
background offered him the opportunity to appeal to a diverse nation by utilizing the African
American jeremiad, a rhetoric that scolds while offering redemption for sins of the past.

AMERICAN JEREMIAD
The American jeremiad is rhetoric of indignation and demands the nation change in
order to improve. The term jeremiad, simply put is a complaint, derived “from the Old
Testament prophet, Jeremiah, who warned of Israel’s fall and the destruction of the
Jerusalem temple by Babylonia as punishment for the people’s failure to keep the Mosaic
 24

covenant” (Howard-Pitney, 1990, p. 6). The American jeremiad seeks redemption not
through system change, but through the labor and will of the American people, (Murphy,
1990).
Leeman (2006) contends that the jeremiad is a “strategic rhetorical choice” (p. 240)
that “bridged the ethnic divide” (p. 224) and is an oratory form that plainly communicates
“moral condemnation” (p. 224). He explained that the Bible has been augmented by the
Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, so the jeremiad
framed within the ethnical compass of these documents provides the platform with which to
communicate as the surrogate voice of a Higher Power (replacing God’s judgment as their
own) to proclaim “the audience has sinned, and thus violated their covenant with God” (p.
225). In Leeman’s study, he notes that traditional elements of the jeremiad such as
classifying the audience as the chosen people and the lack of optimism for a better future
were omitted by the rhetorician.
Bercovitch (1978) describes it as a contradictory rhetorical strain between the hoped
for ideal and feared reality, which directly align with the communication themes used in
Obama’s campaign. Obama’s redemption themes are clearly stated in his campaign slogans
of “change,” “hope,” and “yes we can.” He clearly communicates that what has been
happening in America is not satisfactory and needs to change for the better, then he provides
America with the hope that the future of the country can improve if he is elected.
Obama, by speaking to all of America and conjuring up the country’s historical
failures, provides the opportunity to transition into a better future. “As a pattern of political
discourse, the most significant function of the jeremiad is that it helps to define (and
redefine) the meaning of the American past,” (Ritter, 1980, p. 164); Obama framed his
presidential rhetoric in America’s past sins – sins of political, economic, environmental,
international, and other government failures, frames American jeremiad rhetoric, which is a
common form of communication in the U.S.
The jeremiad declares Americans “have failed to live up to our founding principles,
betrayed our sacred covenant as history’s (or God’s) chosen nation, and must rededicate
ourselves to our ideals, reclaim our founding promise” (Stephenson, 2010). So regardless of
the present day status in America’s culture, the historic fact –the sin of slavery- continues to
exist and provide a platform of guilt and justification for pursuing betterment. In an
 25

American jeremiad, “the fact that America has drifted away from its ideals is not presented
as a fatal error, but as a test of the national character,” (Ritter, 1980, p. 160). Obama offered
his vision as the means to reclaim American ideals and improve the overall character of the
nation.
Howard-Pitney (1990) explains “The complete rhetorical structure of the American
jeremiad has three elements: citing the promise; criticism of the present declension; or
retrogression from the promise; and a resolving prophesy that society will shortly complete
its mission and redeem the promise” (p. 8). Obama displays all three of these American
jeremiad elements within his rhetoric. In order for the American jeremiad to be effective,
one must first convince society that the current situation is flawed and far from its potential
(or the present declension). The rhetorical power in the jeremiad is its capacity to induce
strain between affliction and hope, while combining a “national promise and yearning for
national renewal,” (Murphy, 2008, p. 12) into influential communication.  In this sense,
Obama applied the American jeremiad to his transformational rhetoric of change, providing
the voting population his vision of hope that if elected, he would “transform what might have
been a search for moral or social alternatives into a call for cultural revitalization”
(Bercovitch, 1978, p. 87). Obama’s messages of hope (for a better future) and change (in
policies) to achieve a better America align with American jeremiads “simultaneously
lamenting a declension and celebrating a national dream” (Bercovitch, 1978, p. 87). So
Obama uses the tone of the American jeremiad to stimulate a yearning for transformation
among the masses.  
According to Murphy (2008), “to focus exclusively on America’s declining trajectory
is to miss the hope so crucial to the jeremiad. . . . This tension between despair and hope is
the critical feature separating jeremiads from other types of political narratives” (p. 13). The
power in Obama’s transformational rhetoric was due in large part to his use of the American
jeremiad, which instills dissatisfaction with the present in order to provide a platform of hope
to persuade voters to follow him based on his promise for a better America.  
However, in order to transform through the use of American jeremiad, one must have
a vision beyond the status quo. Or as Bercovitch (1978) explains it,
A prophetic vision that unveils the promises, announces the good things to come,
and explains away the gap between fact and ideal. . . . But the rhetoric itself
suggests something different. It posits a movement from promise to experience . .
 26

. with prophetic assurance, toward a resolution that incorporates (as it transforms)

both the promise and the condemnation. (p. 81)
I will demonstrate in later chapters that Obama did just that. Through his campaign rhetoric
again and again he pointed out current flaws with the nation and transitioned into how
citizens working in unity could improve it.
The jeremiad strives to “repair the breach” (Stephenson, 2010), between the broken
present and the ideal future. Similarly, Obama yearns to repair the breach between Bush’s
administration and what he envisions the future America could be under his command.
Obama strives to revitalize the American Dream through his transformational rhetoric, “Of
all symbols of identity, only America has united nationality and universality, civic and
spiritual selfhood, secular and redemptive history, the country's past and paradise to be, in a
single synthetic ideal” (Bercovitch, 1978, p. 86). Obama capitalizes on this collective, but
diverse, American identity in his rhetoric, which I will discuss later in the unification section.

AFRICAN AMERICAN JEREMIAD

The African American jeremiad is a warning from blacks to whites regarding the
coming consequences for the sin of slavery (Howard-Pitney, 1990; Moses, 1982). The
African American jeremiad reveals minority notions, but also demonstrates how oppressed
groups often accept and adopt the values of majority groups as their own (Howard-Pitney,
1990). The African American jeremiad triggers both guilt (from past sin of slavery and
possibly about never before electing a black president) and fear (of repeating sins of the past
or fear of continuing without progressing). Guilt and fear both provide possible incentives
for white Americans to vote for Obama, while offering a means to rectify this moral dilemma
instead of inaction which might result in the feared consequences of sin.
The African American jeremiad is a means of rhetoric that motivates followers to
move in the direction of the rhetor.  The jeremiad:
Serves as a rhetoric of social control. In times of crisis, it functions to shape
responses to the difficulties that reaffirm the viability and nobility of the
American experiment. The jeremiad brings with it a definition of American
history as a constant movement toward a special destiny, sanctioned by God.
(Murphy, 1990, p. 412)
Therefore, the African American jeremiad can be a communication tool in transformational
leadership to transition from a place of crisis to recovery.  
 27

The African American jeremiad in transformational leadership is useful to theorize

how this type of rhetoric influences the behavior of followers. “By looking to the past
through the jeremiad, Americans limit the kinds of choices they can make about the future.
While reform within that tradition is possible, the jeremiad carries fundamental assumptions
that make serious consideration of structural change difficult,” (Murphy, 1990, p. 412), but
Obama’s African American jeremiad traverses this challenge by coupling his vision with the
message of change providing hope for modernizing policy.
Obama’s utilization of the African American jeremiad allows him to communicate a
solution for the redemption of America’s sin of slavery, by shifting the focus “away from
possible flaws in the covenant itself, such as institutional racism, and toward the failure of
individuals to live out the appropriate values” (Murphy, 1990, p. 409). Therefore, poetically
Obama’s election into the presidential position symbolizes redemption by activating progress
toward a righteous path, with society moving in a new direction of improved ethos and
tangible evidence of racial equity.
Burke’s guilt-purification-redemption process, in reference to the African American
jeremiad explains,
It is an exchange in which whites provide socioeconomic justice for blacks in
return for black absolution of white guilt. This exchange allows blacks to
maintain dignity by giving something they have more of than whites (moral
authority) for something whites have more of than blacks (socioeconomic-
political authority). (Bobbitt, 2004, pp. 8-9)
This guilt-purification-redemption process provides Obama an opportunity to use his mixed
race to appeal to a broad spectrum in the U.S. population.  
According to Burke’s theory, guilt is innate to human nature and redemption is the
result of purification, which is any means whereby guilt is absolved. So the guilt-
purification-redemption theory is applied when the rhetor leads one from guilt to redemption,
transforming how one perceives themselves and their cultural treatment of citizens. In this
case, the American voters elected their first African American President, which perhaps is
symbolic of the purification process by resolving guilt from sins of the past related to racism
and slavery.  
Obama’s victory moved the country forward, breaking through the race barrier of the
previously exclusive Caucasian male presidential demographic “changing American
consensus . . . prodding it toward ever more thorough and inclusive social change” (Howard-
 28

Pitney, 1990, p. 187). This change required a consensus, in order for this African American
candidate to be elected into the presidency, more than just black American votes were
necessary. It wasn’t a white versus black race, but rather a movement of diverse ethnicities
believing in the Obama vision presented via his rhetoric. His transformational rhetoric did
not fall only on African American ears, but across a wide spectrum of races, religions, ages,
genders, and political parties, “African American rhetors crossed social boundaries to bring
their message of hopeful protest to racially mixed or even predominantly white audiences”
(Vander Lei & Miller, 1999, p. 85). Obama had appealed not only to African Americans, but
also dominated other races, winning 67 percent of the Hispanic votes, 62 percent of Asian
votes, he won 69 percent of first time voters, earned 95 percent of the Black Democrat votes
as opposed to only 43 percent of White Democrats, according to the 2008 The New York
Times exit polls (The New York Times, 2008a, 2008b).  This is an important point for
presenting movement because the transformation, or “change,” transcended races and
permeated across demographics.  
Martin Luther King Jr. “introduced the rest of the nation to these African American
rhetorical traditions that contextualize protest with long-suffering confidence that African
Americans would be ‘free at last’” (Vander Lei & Miller, 1999, p. 84), then Obama became
the first African American president, symbolically represents the ultimate freedom of
blacks… free to pursue and achieve even the highest position in U.S. government.  
Unlike the jeremiad where the speaker evokes new testament and old testament
prophets who went into seclusion to seek God’s wisdom and then return to communicate that
message to the community, in the African American jeremiad, “the speaker signals this
position of alienation through metaphor and scriptural illusion rather than social isolation”
(Vander Lei & Miller, 1999, p. 87).  
The core values of America considered to be rooted in founding documents: the
Constitution and the Bible (Minifee, 2013), in addition to the Declaration of Independence,
and the Emancipation Proclamation, the African American jeremiad has a three-pronged
approach, it promises freedom and equality, criticizes America’s failure to accomplish these
promises (often coupled with a threat or warning) and also prophesizes that America will
ultimately obtain its promised excellence - the “American Dream” (Howard-Pitney, 1990;
Ritter, 1980; Rowland & Jones, 2007; Vander Lei & Miller, 1999; Walker & Smithers,
 29

2009). Like the American jeremiad and African American jeremiad, transformational
leadership also offers a means to a better future, setting a vision of an improved culture and
an ideal destiny. “Speakers using the jeremiad seem to understand why the problems of the
day exist and can offer solutions without threatening the basic structure of the country,”
(Murphy, 1990, p. 411), so candidates often point out the current administration’s failures
and offer a better solution through their campaign rhetoric.
Using rhetorical skills a transformational leader builds a vision that an assembly of
people can identify with, but does not rely solely on power or position. Instead, they create
and foster sustained relationships with group members through motivational messages (Bass,
1985, 1990; Burns, 1978; Frey, Gouran, & Poole, 1999). These motivational messages are
communicated to various demographics during an election campaign in order to generate and
maximize votes for a candidate. 
In Chapter 3 I will analyze Obama’s use of his transformational rhetoric and
demonstrate how communication is the key to his transformational leadership. I will deliver
a critical analysis of multiple speeches by Obama to illustrate his rhetoric resounded with
inspirational motivation that created a shared vision, through “emotional appeals and creating
high expectations” (Kezar & Eckel, 2008, p. 381). Obama petitions to “an optimistic
worldview in which America’s modern problems will be surmounted by the valiant actions
of average Americans instilled with the basic values at the core” (Harrell, 2010, p. 173).
Scholars argue that leaders can create institutional transformation and commitment by
relaying a diversity agenda (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pederson, & Allen, 1999; Kezar &
Eckel, 2008; Musil et al., 1999). In this thesis, I contend that such a “diversity agenda” is
evident in Obama’s use of the African American jeremiad in his transformational rhetoric
within his transformational leadership approach.  Obama’s political campaign, juxtaposed
with his African American jeremiad, sermon-like rhetoric rich with guilt, sin, and slavery, set
the stage for his transformational leadership to guide Americans into repentance and
redemption. 
 30

CHAPTER 3 

CASE STUDY: BARACK OBAMA’S

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND
COMMUNICATION  

Good communication skills should be considered a prerequisite for effective

leadership and business success. Communication is interwoven throughout all aspects of
business and is often a prominent component of the job- CEOs, lawyers, preachers,
commentators, teachers, politicians, and other professionals all benefit from communicating
proficiently. Communication through various mediums is essential up and down the
hierarchy of an organization, but even more so in this age of social media and the internet.
With instant access to information, subordinates expect to be informed by their leadership
through various forms of communication. Everything from welcoming a new employee at
the organization’s orientation, up to the CEO’s vision ultimately influences the operational
success or failure of an organization. The clarity, inspiration, incentive, and other such
motivations within day-to-day communication can significantly impact employee
productivity, personal investment, and loyalty to the company or organization. But do
employees genuinely take pride in where they work and take ownership of the company’s
mission and therefore passionately contribute to the success of the business? Individuals,
companies, organizations, or even countries must strive to educate, inform, persuade,
influence, and transform various audiences by appealing to individuals and the collective
masses through rhetoric. Mastering effective communication may directly impact
productivity, profit, innovation, and the success of the organization by influencing staff
attitudes and actions. My view is that transformational rhetoric is the communication needed
for powerful and effective transformational leadership.
Through a sampling of Obama’s speeches, I demonstrate that transformational
leadership is made manifest through his rhetoric. This chapter will provide an extensive
evaluation and analysis of Obama’s rhetoric used in various speeches in order to support my
argument that he is a transformational leader who utilized transformational rhetoric. This
 31

thesis focuses on transformational rhetoric to augment previous perspectives that have

“understated the role of rhetoric” in transformational leadership (Amernic et al., 2007, p.
1843). My goal is to advance the field of communication by going beyond defining
transformational leadership and offer a skill that can aid one in becoming a transformational
leader. Therefore, the style and type of communication I will focus on is transformational
rhetoric, which was utilized and demonstrated by Obama in his speeches during the 2008
presidential campaign and immediately following his election. I hope to show
transformational leadership is only effective when coupled with the component of
communication. Specifically, transformational rhetoric is the communicative means to
transform policy, cultures, and people (both intellectually and behaviorally). I seek to
investigate the rhetorical contribution that enables and enacts transformational leadership,
arguing not only that communication is in fact an ingredient to the transformational
leadership model, but that it is the foundation from which transformation begins.
Obama’s transformational leadership was evident not only through the traditional
characteristics defined and generally agreed upon by scholars, but was manifested in a
unique manner - through his rhetoric. Obama’s platform rested on the one-word slogans
“hope” and “change.” “Change” of course invokes the idea of transformation. This
“change” rhetoric triggered emotions, motivated and inspired Americans across the country
to vote for change by voting for him. Ultimately, he was successful; there was a change in
regime and a new style of leadership in the Presidential position. 

FOLLOW ME 
During the presidential campaign, Obama emerged as a front runner and eventually
was assigned, through election, to the leadership position as President of the United
States. Logic concludes that a person is a leader if someone is following. But what is it that
convinces people to follow? Is it the individual, a gesture, an ideal, aesthetics,
commonalties, a belief in the leader’s potential to succeed, effective persuasion, an incentive
or another driving influence? All of those motivations are generated through communication
– either verbally or nonverbally, through words (often books, speeches, debates, or media
interviews), videos (Public Service Announcements or TV commercials), signs, slogans,
tweets, photos, websites and so forth, which all communicate why one should follow,
 32

providing vital insight into what (vision) and whom (character, qualifications, etc.) they will
follow. I believe leadership is kinetic, requiring energy and effort to get others to move in
the same direction. Obama was able to get the majority of America moving in his direction
as evidenced by his victorious presidential election, but how? Was it his policies, his
inspiring personal story, his personality, his experience, his vision, ideals, charisma, and
other such transformational leadership traits? Yes, but each of these had to be communicated
to the public and needed to resonate with a variety of perspectives across the nation. True to
Aristotle’s ethos, pathos, and logos, Obama communicated with authority and credibility
(ethos), which earned him respect, he also utilized emotional appeals (pathos) and persuaded
through deductive and inductive reasoning (logos or logic) presenting evidence, often
through anecdotal stories of citizens, to support his claims (Ramage & Bean, 1998).
This chapter will present several modes of communication utilized by Obama, that of
transformational rhetoric, to include: transformational leadership and its affiliated
characteristics such as charisma, intellectual stimulation, innovation, motivation, and
unification. Then I will demonstrate his use of the American jeremiad, the African American
jeremiad, and transformational rhetoric as they contribute to his transformational leadership.
I contend that all of these (American jeremiad, African American jeremiad, and
transformational leadership) were developed through transformational rhetoric as the
predominant model of communication. Utilizing excerpts of rhetoric from six of Obama’s
speeches, I will show that his communication made his transformational leadership a reality. 
There are many ways a rhetor can accomplish transformation within an audience,
Obama achieves this through Kenneth Burke’s guilt purification (Bobbitt, 2004) utilizing the
rhetorical genres of American jeremiad and the African American jeremiad, but ultimately
through his own genre of communication, that of transformational rhetoric. His rhetoric
stimulated the momentum for Americans to follow his vision.

OBAMA’S TRANSFORMATIONAL RHETORIC 

In this section I will attempt to answer the question that has stumped scholars for
decades: how does transformational leadership work? Rather than simply defining it, I hope
to further the field of communication by equipping leaders with the tool of communication.
Many scholars define what transformational leadership looks like, but few explain how to
 33

become one – I propose transformational rhetoric is a significant component. I define

transformational rhetoric as communication that contributes to persuasion, measureable
action (such as numbers at the poll booth) and ultimately, transformation (in thought but
most importantly evidenced through tangible outcomes such as votes). For the sake of
transformational rhetoric and using Obama’s speeches as a case study for this type of
communication, I will focus on several aspects of transformational rhetoric: hope, the case
for change, innovation/intellectual stimulation, call to action, motivation, unification,
American jeremiad, African American jeremiad, sins of the past, and racial stalemate, which
I believe compels the transformation in followers.  
Through his speeches, Obama demonstrates each of the Four I’s of transformational
leadership (Idealized Influence, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, and
Individualized Consideration) mentioned in Chapter 2. He communicated Idealized
Influence, or his competence and moral integrity, every time he expressed his disappointment
in the current status of Americans. He implied that it was morally corrupt to continue on this
path, while inferring he was the competent leader the nation needed to get back on an ethical
path.  
He demonstrated his Inspirational Motivation or optimistic rhetoric in his Out of
Many, One speech by saying such things as:
I believe that we can give our middle class relief and provide working families
with a road to opportunity. I believe we can provide jobs to the jobless, homes to
the homeless. . . . I believe . . . we can meet the challenges that face us. (Obama,
2004, July 27)
All of these examples instill a sense of hope. Similarly, he encouraged innovation, or
Intellectual Stimulation, throughout his rhetoric, using phrases such as, “We’ll restore
science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders” (Obama, 2009, January 20).
He also demonstrated his Individualized Consideration, or ability to listen to his followers
and mentor, when he said, “A government of the people, by the people and for the people has
not perished from this Earth. This is your victory,” in his Election Night Victory speech
(2008, November 8). These provide a small sampling of the transformational leadership
evident in Obama’s rhetoric.  
Transformational leadership refers to leaders who inspire and motivate people
(Barbuto, Fritz, & Marx, 2000; Kezar & Eckel, 2008). Transformational leaders must
 34

present and defend a case for change by developing an alternate and appealing vision of the
future. Obama’s transformational rhetoric is most frequently found in inspiring messages of
change and hope themes. “America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what we
have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow” (Obama,
2008, November 4), these are inspiring and motivating sentiments.
Obama often encouraged transformation simply by using synonyms for
transformation in his rhetoric, such as using the word “change” as one of his campaign
slogans. Much of his rhetoric either implied or directly stated the need to change or
transform the country. For example, in A More Perfect Union, “The Race Speech,” Obama
references “a belief that society can change” (2008, March 18). Later in the same speech, he
solidifies that belief by emphatically stating, “America can change.”  In fact, Obama uses the
actual word “change” or “transformation” in all six of the speeches cited for this case study.
Although not a linguistic study, the point is made that what one communicates, from a broad-
brush vision, all the way down to the specific words chosen to paint that vision contribute to
transformational leadership. Through transformational rhetoric one may be able to establish
a transformational agenda. 
Obama used the American jeremiad to establish a case for change as well. His
rhetoric demonstrates all three of the American jeremiad elements (promise, declension and
prophesy). His promise is to change the nation by changing politics, he expresses declension,
or dissatisfaction, with the present state of the nation by proclaiming various failures in the
past administration’s term, and his prophesy is found in his campaign motto, “yes we can”
promoting, through his rhetoric, a vision that American can be better (Obama, 2008,
November 4). 
Obama’s rhetorical structure aligns with the above mentioned elements. However,
his promise to change America is not clearly defined, “Both his rhetorical style and his
ingrained disposition tend to obscure rather than reveal. This is how Obama remains
enigmatic no matter how much we see of him” (Drehle, 2008). His criticism of the present
declension is the current state of national deterioration - rebuking the past administration and
those voters who allowed it to continue in such a manner cautioning, “we love this country
too much to let the next four years looks like the last eight” (Obama, 2008, August 28),
referring to the previous Bush administration.
 35

The jeremiad possesses a “framed dissent within a celebration of past promises and
hope for future fulfillment of them” (Vander Lei & Miller, 1999, p. 87). Obama scorned the
past policy, while providing hope for a better future through political promises such as
establishing tax codes that “reward American workers and small businesses,” cut taxes for
95% of all working families, end dependence on oil from the middle east, create renewable
sources of energy through wind and solar power and biofuels, create affordable and
accessible health care for every single American, ensure equal pay for an equal days work
(referring to discrepancies in men and women’s salaries), among other such promises.
The violations of American ideals, then traced the causes of the disorders to the
sins of the people, and finally, called for a greater adherence to the values of
American traditions as the way toward redemption. . . . The American value
system was not the problem; it was the solution. (Murphy, 1990, p. 407)
But Obama’s prophesy is communicated through the “yes we can” slogan, which utilized the
African American jeremiad to inspire the hope and motivation necessary for citizens to
redeem the country from past sins.

VISION 
According to Bass and Avolio (1994), transformational leaders communicate their
vision over all other subjects to their followers. Obama’s vision is evident in his rhetoric, “I
see it as a vision for America – as a blueprint for our future” and later stating, “We do what
is necessary to move this country forward” (Obama, 2009, February 24). He continually
advanced his vision for the future in his rhetoric.
Institutional change and a new vision require effective communication in order to
outline the vision in such a way that followers understand and also desire to join the
movement to contribute to the vision, ultimately garnering enough support that followers
don’t just conceptually concur with the leader’s vision, but they actually take action
individually and collectively to convert the vision into reality, “Change happens because the
American people demand it – because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new
leadership, a new politics for a new time” (Obama, 2008, August 28). Obama challenges the
American people to rise to the occasion and join his vision, which is a transformational
leadership characteristic, by simply, directly and plainly stating, “I need your help” during
his Victory Night Speech (Obama, 2008, November 4).  Obama’s campaign slogans were
“change,” “hope,” and “yes we can,” which align with a transformational leader’s goal to
 36

bring institutional change, hope for revitalization, and confidence in a new vision in order to
achieve an improved state of the organization, or in this case the nation (Amernic et al.,
2007; Strange & Mumford, 2002; Tichy & Devanna, 1986).  
Although limited, some researchers have acknowledged rhetoric as a key component
of transformational leadership, as stated,
Transformational leaders seek to transform attitudes, values and behaviours…
This imperative provides leaders with the incentive to use a variety of theatrical
and rhetorical devices to encourage followers to believe in the leader’s ability to
exercise unique and extraordinary insight into the environment around them, to
diagnose organizational ailments accurately, to prescribe effective treatment
regimes, and to render organizational transformation. (Amernic, Craig, &
Tourish, 2007, p. 1842)
Other scholars endorse the requirement of communicate to explain their vision,
“Transformational leaders must be able to define and articulate a vision for their
organizations” (Bromley & Kirschner-Bromley, 2007, p. 55), in other words, leaders must be
effective communicators. Leaders “tend to be able to articulate, in an exciting and
compelling manner, a vision of the future that the followers are able to accept and strive
towards” (Kirkbride, 2006, p. 26). I support the idea that Obama did this through his
inspiring and charismatic communication skills, contributing to his success as a
transformational leader.

UNIFICATION
A key component of transformational leadership is unifying the masses to get them
moving in the same direction as the leader’s vision. Leadership is often defined as a
relationship that provokes followers to seek mutual objectives that represent the incentive of
both leaders and followers (Burns, 1978; Krishnan, 2001). Obama was able to identify with
citizens through his personal story and his hope for a better future, which I will demonstrate
is typical for transformational leaders and an important aspect of unification.
The title of one of Obama’s speeches, Out of Many, One nicely sets the stage for how
his rhetoric was transformational because it united American voters, “We’re all connected as
one people” he said and later, “There is not a liberal America and a conservative America –
there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America
and Latino America and Asian America – there’s the United States of America” (Obama,
2004, July 27). His rhetoric endeavors not only to align the ideals and future goals of
 37

Americans, but also to unite the multiple races that comprise America. Obama meets the
collective group’s expectations by appealing to individuals and the masses, while fostering
alignment with and support his presidential vision. Further evidence of unification rhetoric
leading to transformation is found in the statement, “I will ask you join in the work of
remaking this nation” (Obama, 2008, November 4). He asks the collective group to “join in
the work” both unifying while simultaneously making a call to action. 
Obama’s rhetoric often acknowledged his own personal responsibility to transform
the nation, but also held American citizens responsible and called them to act as well, “My
job – our job – is to solve the problem” (Obama, 2009, February 24). Later he again
emphasizes the obligation of individuals and the government,
It is our responsibility as lawmakers and educators to make this system work. But
it is the responsibility of every citizen to participate in it. . . . It is up to us. . . . A
willingness to take responsibility for our future and for posterity. (Obama, 2009,
February 24)
This type of team mentality fosters group think and unification, which can generate
momentum by the masses. Implying anything is possible when working together (strength in
numbers) toward a common vision.
Transformational leadership builds shared responsibility through organizational goals
and a common vision, requiring work by both parties,
Having strong personal values isn’t enough; we need a society in which people
work hard, and in which the government both gives them the resources they need
for their hard work to pay off and protects them from disasters not of their own
making. (Rowland & Jones, 2007, p. 441)
Obama consistently promoted such unification, challenging individuals to unify to
collectively drive the change. 
An important “function of the modern jeremiad is to promote cultural cohesion,”
(Ritter, 1980, p. 169). Therefore, there must be a unifying message within transformational
rhetoric. Howell and Avolio (1993) explain that transformational leaders “inspire followers
to transcend their own self-interests for a higher collective purpose, mission, or vision” (p.
892), the ‘collective purpose’ becomes national unification.  
In Obama’s A More Perfect Union, “The Race Speech,” we can see his
transformational rhetoric clearly implemented to persuade voters from a broad spectrum of
 38

backgrounds and experiences toward a unified cohesion, in order to become a powerful

collective force, saying,
We cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together –
unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories,
but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have
come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction –
towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren. (March 18, 2008)
His inspirational rhetoric provokes voters to work together to achieve a better quality of life
for Americans.  
Obama convinces his followers that although the situation is dire, as a unit it can be
overcome, stating, “If we come together and lift this nation from the depths of this crisis,”
(Obama, 2009, February 24), establishing a common vision that encourages everyone to join
the movement. The use of “we” and “our” links him to the voters and furthers his initiative
for unification while setting the tone for transformation.  
Obama “transcends the racial divide so effortlessly that it seems reasonable to expect
that he can bridge all the other divisions” (Klein, 2006) and he did in fact endeavor to unify
the nation in other areas of diversity by closing the gaps between economic social status,
empowering all classes, promoting every individual, regardless of race, financial standing,
religion, and so forth. Obama successfully connects the powerful to the ordinary, linking the
elite to the common, furthering his vision of unification and advocating “Hope is found in
unlikely places; that inspiration often comes not from those with the most power or celebrity,
but from the dreams and aspirations of Americans who are anything but ordinary” (Obama,
2009, February 24). He continually reinforces this idea that although American citizens are
unique, collectively they are the same in their shared hope for opportunity, success, and a
better future, as explained when he avowed America is “bigger than the sum of our
individual ambitions, greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction” (Obama,
2009, January 20). 
Transformational rhetoric unites individuals into a group on a common path, “This
nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one” (Obama, 2008,
March 18). Obama was able to set the tone, provide hope and a vision for “limitless
opportunity for progress and a society in which all Americans are fundamentally similar,
despite differences of race, creed, religion, and so forth” (Rowland & Jones, 2007, p. 434), to
build unity in the midst of variety.  
 39

Obama then pushes beyond unification of race in an attempt to unite Americans from
both republican and democratic parties by insisting all citizens desire to improve America
regardless of political views, so uniting toward a common goal will mutually benefit them.
This is evident in his rhetoric, “We need to remind ourselves, despite all of our differences,
just how much we share: Common hopes, common dreams, a bond that will not break”
(Obama, 2006, p. 25).  
Obama goes so far as to list the differences among Americans as a mechanism to
unite them through their individualism and uniqueness:
We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents
poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the
Blue States and yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the Red States. There are
patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war
in Iraq. We are one People, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes,
all of us defending the United States of America. (Obama, 2004, July 27)  
Obama shows that through diversity, individualism itself is what unites Americans who
defend such differences and freedoms, as demonstrated when he said, “For alongside our
famous individualism, there’s another ingredient in the American saga. A belief that we’re
all connected as one people” (Obama, 2004, July 27); he uses what could be a divisive
characteristic among voters, their differences, as a unifying factor instead.  
Obama’s transformational rhetoric attempts to unite a diverse American public by
addressing them collectively, but as independent groups, “Fellow Americans, Democrats,
Republicans, Independents” (Obama, 2004, July 27). By transforming individual political
views into one united view . . . the “American view,” Obama acknowledges an eclectic group
while working to conform them into a cooperative group that can stand together in support of
his vision. In other words, in a diverse country, he was able to appeal to the masses and
unify Americans toward his vision in spite of their differences. This strategy proved
successful for Obama, resulting in the winning number of votes, which of course was the
ultimate goal in the campaign.  
Obama frequently communicated this idea of unification using the shared passion for
America as the medium to resonate and influence potential followers (voters), “the values
defining the agency at the heart of the American Dream are both personal (hard work,
responsibility, determination, and so forth) and societal (freedom, potential for upward
 40

mobility, inclusiveness, community cohesion, and empowerment)” (Rowland & Jones, 2007,
p. 431), all of which Obama communicated.  
Breaking down religious differences and transforming them into a unified nation, he
said,
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a
nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers. We are
shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth.
(Obama, 2009, January 20)  
He unites Americans by addressing and embracing their differences,
It’s the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and
Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled
and not disabled – Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never
been a collection of Red States and Blue: we are, and always will be, the United
States of America. (Obama, 2008, November 4)
His rhetoric transcended individual variation and unified individuals as a nation, “What is
required now is for this country to pull together, confront boldly the challenges we face, and
take responsibility for our future once more” (Obama, 2009, February 24).  
From the examples above, one can see a pattern in Obama’s rhetoric, he “created a
narrative that balanced personal and societal values and in so doing made the American
Dream more accessible” (Rowland & Jones, 2007, p. 434). He tends to outline categories of
varying demographics, beliefs, politics, and sexuality in an effort to merge, blend, and unite
by leveling differences in order to work toward simply “America” while highlighting
individual and unique cultures, “ordinary men and women – students and soldiers, farmers
and teachers, nurses and janitors” (Obama, 2008, August 28). Stating, “each of us can
pursue our individual dreams but still come together as one American family” (Obama, 2008,
August 28). In essence, he persuades Americans that it is feasible for the country to unite
while retaining their individual views.  
Obama is persistent and consistent in his rhetoric, which strives to evoke patriotism
and a united front that transcends political parties.
The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and
Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together
and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red
America or a Blue America – they have served the United States of America.
(Obama, 2008, August 28)
 41

All Americans must unite in order to meet that common goal; you can see further evidence of
this in his rhetoric: “We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes,
all of us defending the United States of America” (Obama, 2004, July 27).  This is
transformational leadership because it penetrates political parties and other affiliations to
foster the mentality of striving for a greater good through unity.  
Transformation requires a movement by the masses, so a transformational leader
must appeal to the broad spectrum of Americans, “People of every creed and color, from
every walk of life – is that in America, our destiny is inextricably linked. That together, our
dreams can be one” (Obama, 2008, August 28). Transformational leadership merges the
multitudes by finding the commonalities among diverse, independent individuals, “Men and
women of every race . . . Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life”
(Obama, 2008, March 18).  Obama “called upon these social groups to do their moral duty, to
join the national progressive alliance” (Howard-Pitney, 1990, p. 148). Time after time,
Obama’s rhetoric united Americans, transforming them from opponents to cohesive group
motivated to vote for Obama and his vision established through his communication.  

MOTIVATION AND HOPE 

Motivation is a fundamental characteristic of a transformational leader, so motivation
should be apparent in transformational rhetoric. Motivation can come in various forms:
through guilt, fear that things may get worse unless a change is made, hope for better things,
intellectual appeals, innovative ideas, charisma, an exciting new vision and other such
appeals.  
Motivation is a common theme found throughout Obama’s rhetoric, “By confidently
communicating attractive and attainable goals for the team (i.e. inspirational motivation),
leaders motivate and focus team members’ efforts on a set of shared goals, which in turn
facilitate trust” (Gillespie & Mann, 2004, p. 591). He uses rhetoric that motivates and
inspires American citizens to change – contending change is the way to improve
America. This change is in order to earn redemption, which I’ll cover in the African
American jeremiad analysis.
Obama motivates citizens to believe “America is a place where all things are
possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time” (Obama, 2008,
 42

Nov. 4).  Motivation can come in various forms, to include those mentioned already, Obama
uses a variety of forms of motivation, but especially motivates through hope -- hope for a
better future: promises of work, housing, economic stability. Motivation to change can even
come via emotional connections such as inspiration and hope, rather than a cognitive
approach. “Obama’s metaphor of hope is powerful because it encompasses a balance
between the responsibility of the individual and that of the community” (Rowland & Jones,
2007, p. 442), his transformational rhetoric was built on the inspirational “hope” campaign,
including his hope that Americans would get involved and work toward the improved future
he envisioned.   
Obama’s transformational rhetoric was dense with the idea of hope coupled with the
need to change; he promoted hope for something better than the current situation. Hope is
also an emotion, one with an optimistic perspective and anticipation of an improved
circumstance. Hope supports the American jeremiad, which promises a new path, a righteous
one to make up for sins of the past.
Examples of using hope to implore potential followers are found throughout Obama’s
speeches, in statements and phrases such as: “Hope of a better day” (Obama, 2008,
November 4) and the hope to keep “the American promise alive” (Obama, Acceptance
Speech, Aug. 28, 2008).  Hope offers the idea that Americans are capable of contributing to
the vision and turning mere “hope” into a reality that everyone can benefit from. “Obama
uses the rhetoric of hope to reach a wide American audience” (Atwater, 2007, p. 122), his
message influenced the majority of Americans regardless of their demographic.  
Obama instills the hope of something better- to improve the current state of affairs
while building confidence that he is the leader for the job. Hope is imparted to individuals
and the group at large, “Too great a focus on individual heroic action would support a
laissez-faire ideology in which responsibility lay with the individual, not the community.
Too great a focus on the community could undercut the heroic qualities of the individual,”
(Rowland & Jones, 2007, p. 444).  
Through a fundamental promise, the American Dream, Obama’s rhetoric takes a
vague idea and emotion, such as hope, then fills in the blanks with a tangible vision
explaining how it is destined to be fulfilled, 
 43

A promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate
growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create
American jobs, look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the
road. Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but
what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves- protect us from
harm… invest in new schools and new roads and new science and
technology. Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help
us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most
money and influence, but for every American who’s willing to work. (Obama,
2008, August 28) 
Hope is often based on the triumphs of the past where the nation overcame trials.
“We are a nation that has seen promise amid peril, and claimed opportunity from ordeal.
Now we must be that nation again” (Obama, 2009, February 24). This rhetoric gives hope
that Americans have come through tough times before and therefore should remain hopeful
and confident they will come through the current trial too.  
Hopeful leadership can often be inspirational; hope is a basic characteristic of
transformational leadership as mentioned earlier. Obama uses the idea of hope as part of his
transformational rhetoric in support of his transformational leadership, saying things such as,
“Hope in the face of difficulty. Hope in the face of uncertainty. The audacity of hope!”
(Obama, 2004, July 27).
His rhetoric likely resonated with citizens on a personal level, giving them hope by
saying things such as:
When credit is available again, that young family can finally buy a new home.
And then some company will hire workers to build it. And then those workers
will have money to spend, and if they can get a loan too, maybe they’ll finally
buy that car, or open their own business. Investors will return to the market, and
American families will see their retirement secured once more. Slowly, but
surely, confidence will return, and our economy will recover. (Obama, 2009,
February 24)
This simple communication of hope is transformational rhetoric, walking citizens through his
vision from struggle to success. Once leaders have unified the masses through and motivated
them, then they can call on them to act. 

CALL TO ACTION AND REPETITION IN RHETORIC 

Transformational leadership, unlike transactional leadership, provides a vision for the
masses to rally behind; so transformational rhetoric, following suit, attempts to convince a
group into action, along a collective path. One of the characteristics of transformational
 44

leadership, as mentioned in Chapter 2, is the ability to motivate followers into action: “We
will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than
before” (Obama, 2009, February 24).   
Obama uses his vision to motivate voters, but he also uses the emotion of fear to
motivate change, stating, “While the cost of action will be great, I can assure you that the
cost of inaction will be far greater” (Obama, 2009, February 24).  The fear tactic is evident
through an approach of prophetic consequences, “That’s the promise of America – the idea
that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation” (Obama,
Acceptance Speech, Aug. 28, 2008). If Americans don’t unite, then collectively they will
fail. Often, fear is the type of communication used to motivate the public to take action.
Appealing to emotional motivations, Obama triggers fear of what might happen without
action, imparting the fear that without change the situation will not improve and may even
worsen. 
Obama emphasized that “both individuals and the community had the responsibility
to act” (Rowland & Jones, 2007, p. 436), empowering the people, his prospective followers,
to be the change. The desired transformation requires movement by those with the power to
change the circumstances, the policy, the norm… in this case U.S. citizens must move to the
voting booth in order to achieve the transformation they seek.
Employing both individual and collective appeal, Obama convicts citizens to
contribute and join this call to action. “It is our responsibility as lawmakers and educators to
make this system work. But it is the responsibility of every citizen to participate in it”
(Obama, 2009, February 24), here he makes a personal call to action and again with, “Each
of us must do our part. . . . Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility – that’s the
essence of America’s promise” (Obama, 2008, August 28). 
Obama clearly communicates to voters that he needs their participation in the vision,
“The state of our economy calls for action, bold and swift. And we will act” (Obama, 2009,
January 20).  Further summoning the nation to act, Obama (2008, November 4) expounds,
“This victory alone is not the change we seek – it is only the chance for us to make that
change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen
without you.”  
 45

The responsibility rests with each citizen to take action, while the blame of ownership
for the current state is due to both individuals and the collective group, “What is required of
us now is a new era of responsibility – a recognition on the part of every American that we
have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world” (Obama, 2009, January 20). 
Obama often uses transformational rhetoric in order to influence social change and
often instills a sense of urgency for such change, “Now is the time to act boldly and wisely –
to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity”
(Obama, 2009, February 24). He articulated change through transformational rhetoric
regarding his vision,
The budget I submit will invest in the three areas that are absolutely critical to our
economic future: energy, health care, and education. . . . But to truly transform
our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of
climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the
profitable kind of energy. (Obama, 2009, February 24)
He laid out his vision for transformation and used transformational rhetoric to communicate
specific areas he would target to achieve that change. These examples of citizens responding
to a call to action, clearly demonstrate that Obama communicates using transformational
rhetoric, even explaining specifically what change would look like if he were president. He
would transform the country into a better nation, saying,
This is our time – to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity
for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the
American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth – that out of many, we are
one. (Obama, 2008, November 4)
Obama calls Americans to act, to be the transformation, and then he credited those
same Americans for his victory,
A government of the people, by the people and for the people has not perished
from this Earth. This is your victory. I know you didn’t do this just to win an
election and I know you didn’t do it for me. You did it because you understand
the enormity of the task that lies ahead. (Obama, 2008, November 4)
Repetition in rhetoric is a trend evident in Obama’s communication; he utilized it to reinforce
his call to action. Like a broken record with consistent and continuous repetition, Obama
emphasized the message of transformation through reiteration of his vision of hope and
change. Sustained and repeated transformational rhetoric may contribute to transformational
leadership. For example, Obama (2004, July 27) demonstrated this technique when he used
the phrases “we can” eight times, “hope of” four times, “I believe” more than three times in a
 46

row and “More to do” multiple times in his Out of Many, One speech. He used “now is the
time” more than six times to instill a sense of urgency for the need for change in his
American Promise Acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention (Obama,
2008, August 28) and again this repetitious tactic is used by Obama with the phrase “Yes we
can” seven times in his Election Night Victory speech (Obama, 2008, November 4).  
Repetition is employed as a technique for transformational rhetoric within individual
speeches, as well as across speeches. The themes of hope, transformation, unification, and
his style of African American jeremiad are found throughout all six of the speeches utilized
in this case study. It seems continuous and clear repetition of a vision is a key element of
transformational rhetoric.  Obama is often direct with his transformational rhetoric, clearly
stating that change is needed, what needs to be changed and who is responsible for making
that change. I contend that unless one communicates in a transformational way,
transformation is unlikely to occur. 

INNOVATION AND INTELLECTUAL STIMULATION

Obama’s run for presidency intellectually stimulated voters; he challenged Americans
to imagine something different. The face of America could be different, it could have a
national health care plan (Obamacare), it could go green, it could pull its troops out of Iraq
and Afghanistan . . . it could even elect a black president for the first time.  
Obama often talked about the need to “revive,” to “build a new foundation,” and
create “new common-sense rules of the road” (Obama, 2009, February 24). He promoted the
ideas of innovation and intellectual stimulation by saying, “It’s a promise that says the
market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should
live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs” (Obama, 2008, August 28).  
Obama led the change movement by encouraging innovation in his rhetoric, and
pointing out his own innovative efforts throughout his campaign, “We have created a new
website… We are creating a new lending fund… We have launched a housing plan… Now
is the time to jumpstart job creation” (Obama, 2009, February 24). His actions supported his
rhetoric, gave him credibility and fostered trust through transparency.  
Obama promoted the change idea through his rhetoric; by using the word ‘new’ he
implied transformation, “New Deal, new jobs, and a new sense of common purpose” and
 47

later, “There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and
threats to meet and alliances to repair” (Obama, 2008, November 4).  In other speeches he
also utilized the term “new” in order to encourage innovation, “Our survival depends on
finding new sources of energy” and later, he continues with phrases such as “new
technology… a new effort to conquer a disease… More reform… Innovative programs”
(Obama, 2009, February 24). Through anecdotal examples Obama encouraged innovation,
“Someone with a good idea can take a risk and start a new business” (Obama, 2008, August
28). His rhetoric endeavored to inspire the masses in an effort to foster a movement while
imparting new ideas and innovation. 
Encouraging transformation through innovation and replacing the old with the new,
“Democrats as well as Republicans will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the
past” (Obama, 2008, August 28). So, Obama encouraged innovation through “bold action”
and “bold ideas,” which led to new jobs and new industries. Using historical accounts, he
validates his claim that new ideas and innovation produce economic stimulation and job
opportunities even when the nation is enduring extreme turmoil. He reminds Americans that
the railroad tracks going from coast to coast were laid in the midst of a civil war yet
stimulated commerce and industry. He recalls that the high school system came out of the
Industrial Revolution, the GI Bill educated a generation following war and depression, while
a desire for more freedom led to highways, put a man on the moon and fostered the
advancement of other such technologies (Obama, 2009, February 24). These facts were used
to appeal to the audience’s intellect (logos), which is a characteristic of transformational
leadership.  
Obama uses transformational rhetoric to encourage and challenge Americans to be
innovative and united in progress toward a better nation, saying “What free men and women
can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage”
(Obama, 2009, January 20), thus his rhetoric utilizes intellectual stimulation to dare
Americans to be innovative, even in whom they cast their vote for.  
In conclusion, Obama uses transformational rhetoric to express his vision, unify the
majority, motivate through hope and inspire to innovate coupled with a call for individuals
and likeminded groups to take action. Through unification he thrived as a transformational
leader, “The best proof that he can unite people to solve problems might be his ability to
 48

unite them to win an election” (Drehle, 2008).  In the next section I will outline Obama’s
practice of the American jeremiad and demonstrate how he applied it to induce
transformational leadership.  

OBAMA’S AMERICAN JEREMIAD 

Obama’s rhetoric is rich with the American jeremiad. This section will show
evidence supporting his use of the American jeremiad and demonstrate how it is a means of
transformational rhetoric contributing to his transformational leadership. 
The American jeremiad was the ideal framework for Obama’s campaign, as citizens
were frustration with a decade of war under the Bush administration, so it presented “a
rhetoric of indignation expressing deep dissatisfaction and challenging the nation to reform”
(Howard-Pitney, 2005, p. vii). The American jeremiad warns against the consequences of
sins and scolds citizens for their role in it, as demonstrated in Obama’s (2009, February 24)
Address to Joint Session of Congress when he said, “That day of reckoning has arrived, and
the time to take charge of our future is here.” Obama’s social and economic inequities,
political shortcomings, glass ceilings, race limitations, and societal immorality all were set
within the American jeremiad in order to demonstrate the need for transformation and
change in the nation.  
Obama (2009, January 20) blames the dire state of the nation on citizens as a whole,
“our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age,” which
contributed to the current state that needed to be rectified.  Obama took on the role of savior,
“The presidential candidate offers to lead the people through repentance back to their
fundamental national values and, thereby, restore America to its former greatness” (Ritter,
1980, p. 159). His victory in the presidential campaign would symbolically represent the
required repentance and lead to the desired change, correcting the wrongs of the past and
putting America and Americans back on the righteous path.  
The American jeremiad is often delivered through sermonic rhetoric, commonly seen
in Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s speeches. Obama displays a pattern of invoking a hirer
power or assuming and summoning a spiritually authoritative role. Obama can be described
not only as campaigning, but as “preaching a message of unity” (Chappell, 2004). Obama
 49

frequently appealed to American’s desire for an improved future by stimulating “people to

act to realize this dream” (Howard-Pitney, 2005, p. 224). 
Patriotism and faith are similar in that they both carry strong emotions (pathos) and
often collide in Obama’s use of the American jeremiad and transformational rhetoric, “That
is the true genius of America – a faith in simple dreams, an insistence on small miracles”
(Obama, 2004, July 27). In this same speech, the rhetor goes on to list realistic and tangible
actions citizens can take to become that change, to make that “miracle” a reality. His
rhetoric motivates then provides the roadmap for transformation. Obama utilized the
American jeremiad by paraphrasing bible verses in much of his rhetoric and by connecting
the state of the nation to God or Godly events, such as “we worship an awesome God in the
Blue States” and later, “in the end, that is God’s greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this
nation. A belief in things not seen. A belief that there are better days ahead” (Obama, 2004,
July 27). He applies these spiritual innuendos to the political condition of the country at the
time.  
Obama often takes the American jeremiad even further with direct biblical references
and inferences. “Contemporary political rhetoric in the jeremiad tradition necessarily
involves an interpretation of the meaning of the American heritage” (Ritter, 1980, p. 164),
requiring the leader to validate their vision not only in American history but also in terms of
Biblical events. Obama utilized the American jeremiad rhetorically by taking a pulpit
approach, utilizing metaphors and scripture to address Americans.
Obama’s rhetoric has been described as “soul-stirring oratory” (Chappell, 2004). His
preacher-like rhetoric often infers the church and therefore the American jeremiad. First he
expresses disappointment, “The most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday
morning” (Obama, 2008, March 18). Then he boldly assumes a pastoral position and
paraphrases a verse directly from the bible,
But in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The
time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to
carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea passed on from generation to
generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve
a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness. (Obama, 2009, January 20)
He invokes divine authority and his prophet persona by establishing biblical
principles by saying, “We do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our
 50

brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us” (Obama, 2008, March 18). He uses the American
jeremiad as a medium to attain unity,
A conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people –
that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and
that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect
union. (Obama, 2008, March 18)
With this rhetoric he fosters the hope and vision that although the nation can never achieve
perfection; it can make progress. In summary, the American jeremiad can be applied to
transformational rhetoric as a tool for transformational leadership, a means to resonate and
connect on a spiritual level, not just on a cognitive level, with would be followers.

OBAMA’S AFRICAN AMERICAN JEREMIAD

The African American jeremiad often refers to the “Black Church” or “Black
Christianity.” For African Americans, the Black Church delivered not only “damning
critiques of the sin of slavery, but provided a place of refuge from slavery, and from the
white world more generally” (Walker & Smithers, 2009, p. 21). African American leaders
may have felt suppressed by the social status and therefore the ones advocating change,
“Eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white” (Obama, 2004,
July 27). He contends it is the responsibility of all citizens, not only the government to unite
individuals into a national system.
Obama’s race played in his favor as black leaders often “employed this widespread
rhetoric of social prophecy and criticism to create a variant that is specifically African
American” (Howard-Pitney, 2005, p. vii). An example of the American jeremiad element of
prophecy is evident in various statements by Obama, such as, “The knowledge that God calls
on us to shape an uncertain destiny . . . why men and women and children of every race and
every faith can join” (Obama, 2009, January 20). This is American jeremiadic rhetoric as it
possesses a sermonic tone, delivered with so much conviction that the speaker seems to be
speaking for God and providing divine perspective.
Jeremiads can be “tools for political mobilization, rhetorical justifications for policy
agendas, power grabs by charismatic demagogues – but underlying all these possibilities…,
jeremiads are stories about how and why the American past has led to the American present”
(Murphy, 2008, p.119), Obama’s rhetoric is filled with anecdotal narratives about American
progress.  
 51

Martin Luther King Jr., anticipated and hoped that an “American progressive alliance
would come together to accomplish this national transformation” (Howard-Pitney, 1990, p.
158), while the 2008 presidential elections fulfilled a piece of that vision and hope. Obama’s
victory furthered King’s vision by transcending the race barrier to the highest seat in the U.S.
government and transformed the traditional Caucasian presidential figure for generations to
come. As Gray (2008) notes:
Obama’s victory is an extraordinary step toward the redemption of America’s
original 400-year-old sin. It is astonishing not least for its quickness, coming just
145 years after President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation
effectively ending slavery and four decades after the assassination of Martin
Luther King Jr. And it is even more astonishing for its decisiveness- Obama
carried Virginia, once the home of the Confederacy.  
Obama’s transformational rhetoric also utilizes the African American jeremiad in his
presidential campaign by communicating America’s shortcomings evident in the government
policies at the time, “The jeremiad typically voiced by national black leaders seems
consistently to have been more searching in examining American social faults and bolder in
prescribing reforms than its most usual white counterparts” (Howard-Pitney, 2005, p. 218).
Framing America’s flaws allowed Obama to ignite a desire to become better, a more “holy”
American public, and segue into his campaign slogan of “change.” Once the flaws of the
current office were identified, he was able to prescribe a new, more hopeful and redeeming
path for citizens, appealing to their moral high calling and offering a way to redeem those
sins of the past.
Obama’s African American jeremiad was communicated under the umbrella of the
“change” theme to present his ideas about a better future. There are multiple superficial as
well as deep inferences behind that one simple word, such as change the policy by changing
the administration from Republican to Democratic; change the direction of the country from
war to peace time; and change the vision by changing the face of American presidents by
electing the first African American President. He successfully accomplished these by using
transformational rhetoric. Obama clearly delivers a jeremiad, “critical of and faithful to
America” (Howard-Pitney, 1990, p. 192), meaning although he pointed out America’s
defects, he simultaneously reinforced his devotion for the nation.
His multicultural heritage as the “son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman
from Kansas” and his marriage to “a black American who carries within her the blood of
 52

slaves and slave owners” (Obama, 2008, March 18), allowed him to appeal to white
America’s guilt of sin (by mentioning his slavery lineage) and also to black Americans
desiring redemption from their slave history invoking action from both blacks and whites to
make right these past wrongs. Of course this only encompasses two perspectives of the vast
variety of races and cultures that comprise America’s citizenship, but for the sake of this
research, I will focus only on the American and African American jeremiads, rather than
through a multicultural lens.  
Often evidence and justification that transformation is needed before one will
transform, so Obama laid out his case for transformation by presenting the bad news first- the
government’s sin of failing to provide economic stability:
Tonight, more Americans are out of work and more are working harder for
less. More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home
values plummet. More of you have cars you can’t afford to drive, credit card bills
you can’t afford to pay, and tuition that’s beyond your reach. (Obama, 2008,
August 28)
With these grim examples, he has established the need for change, providing the
foundational idea that the current process is not the ideal path to continue on and sets the
stage for change, providing several reasons why Americans should support his campaign.  
Transformational leadership is the ability to foster acceptance for change. So it
makes sense that Obama selected “change” as a major cornerstone for his
campaign. Promoting change through his transformational vision and rhetoric was both
direct and effective.   Building on his campaign slogan “change,” although by itself is not
necessarily transformational, is made transformational through his charisma, inspirational
rhetoric, vision and other such transformational leadership traits mentioned earlier. Obama
frequently encouraged transformation through his rhetoric found in simple statements such
as, “It’s time for us to change America” (Obama, 2008, August 28). But Obama needed
Americans not only to agree it was time for change, but he needed them to rally behind him,
“Embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change”
(Obama, 2008, March 18), with this statement he challenged and empowered voters to take
action in order to manifest his vision. 
He needed votes and therefore he used transformational leadership and
transformational rhetoric to motivate citizens to get out and vote for him. His motivational
and inspirational rhetoric was consistent in his communication,
 53

This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment… to reclaim the
American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth - that out of many, we are
one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and
doubt, and those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless
creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes We Can. (Obama, 2008, November
4)
Even though this was said during his victory speech, Obama still needed to inspire
Americans to work with him towards transformation in the White House, he needed his
change rhetoric and momentum towards transformation to continue uninterrupted so he could
implement the policies required to reach his vision. His motivational and inspirational
rhetoric toward this end is evident, “But what we know – what we have seen – is that
America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved
gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow”
(Obama, 2008, March 18).  
The election of Obama, transformed America, it broke through barriers and is proof
of the existence and effectiveness of the African America jeremiad today.  Howard-Pitney
(2005) suggests “The Afro-American jeremiad is, paradoxically, both radical and
conservative. In affirming normative American social beliefs, the jeremiad helps sustain the
current order” (p. 218), but what was the “current order” during the 2008 presidential
election? With a diverse nation, eclectic religious beliefs and political views, one might
contend the current order for America is tolerance for variety, but was there acceptance and
unity or division that lay dormant, awaiting the tipping point?
The black jeremiad may well reflect the influence of hegemonic ideology upon
subordinate groups’ public ideas and programs, but it also illustrates the shrewd
and artful tendency of an oppressed group to refashion values taught by privileged
classes- even as it accepts them – into ideological tools for its own ends.
(Howard-Pitney, 2005, p. 219)
I assert that transformational leadership and transformational rhetoric do not change the core
ethos of individuals, but rather they appeal to the masses while driving individuals toward
one unified vision. 
Obama’s rhetoric brought transformation of culture, classes, ideology, politics, race,
and religion, but ultimately transformed behavior. His communication resulted in action by
the voters. “The black jeremiad’s most distinct and paradoxical trait: It always strives to
speak to and within a changing American consensus, yet is usually at the forward edge of
 54

that consensus, prodding it toward ever more thorough and inclusive social change”
(Howard-Pitney, 2005, p. 219), which is precisely what Obama was striving to do - change
politics and policy at that point in time, but also change the image, the first black president.  
“The United States, the world’s richest and most powerful nation, had a special
obligation to bring about this transformation” (Howard-Pitney, 1990, p. 175), today,
Obama’s transformational rhetoric using the African American jeremiad during the 2008
elections, brought this transformation into reality. Obama’s rhetoric of hope and change
rooted in the African American jeremiad transitioned the political power from a Caucasian
Republican to an African American Democrat, “it is premature to forecast the demise of the
African American jeremiad and of the resilient hope on which it rests” (Howard-Pitney,
2005, p. 228), but the African American jeremiad seems to transcend the ages and is an
effective framework for transformational leadership, even years after slavery.  

SINS OF THE PAST AND GUILT

In March 2008, Obama refers to the Declaration of Independence as “stained by this
nation’s original sin of slavery” invoking white guilt, individual guilt, and national guilt.
Americans accept collective accountability and through a vote can redeem their sinful past.
Much of the African American jeremiad references slavery in America as an injustice and
provides a powerful illustration of the type of government that citizens can prevent. Even
though Americans are no longer under a slave law- it provides a historical example for
communicating change.
Remembering slavery demonstrates America’s failure and shortcomings, thus a
launching pad to articulate another option for progress as a society and prevent similar
transgressions in the future. “So many of the disparities that exist in the African-American
community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation
that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery” (Obama, 2008, March 18), but since the
cause of the divide is known, there is hope that the nation can work from that source to
forgive and heal the past, avoiding the same mistakes in order to create an improved future.  
Although Obama’s rhetoric expresses disappointment in American leadership for
waiting nearly 200 years to end slavery, he also expresses hope and approval of the idea of
equality by reminding citizens that the constitution offers common ground for the “nation’s
 55

original sin of slavery” because it openly admits the shame and wrongness of slavery.
Obama (2008, March 18) states:
Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our
Constitution . . . the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that
promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be
perfected over time.
With this Obama started at the lowest point in history (slavery) to demonstrates how far
America has come but also to indicate the need for continued transformation in the future,
such as the first black president, first female president and other such potential pioneering
milestones this country has yet to fulfill. 
Obama (2008, March 18) encourages the momentum of improving the quality of life
for Americans by saying, “to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march
for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America.” The
momentum toward a more prosperous America starts with redeeming a sinful past. There is
guilt associated with the American slave history and he attempts to use that guilt as
motivation and incentive to vote for him, a Black American, to actualize a vision of an equal
nation.
Sin is often coupled with guilt. Burke’s theory of guilt is based on the notion of
perfection which converts to guilt when an individual fails to meet those expectations or a
nation fails to attain its ideals of justice and equality (Bobbitt, 2004). Obama summons
national guilt to motivate citizens to take action, “Americans in successive generations who
were willing to do their part” (Obama, 2008, March 18); urging this generation, likewise, do
its part. 
Martin Luther King, Jr. proposed redemption by appealing to the audience’s guilt,
warning “the soul of America was at stake” (Bobbitt, 2004, p. 27). Perhaps America was
seeking redemption through the election of the first African American president, this would
pardon the sins of slavery; transforming the nation from sin to salvation.  
Brummett (1981) compares Burkean modes of purification such as scapegoating,
mortification (deep shame, self-inflicted pain or death) and transcendence (going beyond a
philosophical concept or limit) to presidential campaign rhetoric. For example, Obama used
President Bush as his scapegoat, blaming him and his administration for the financial crisis
in the United States. This is transformational rhetoric demonstrates how the rhetor will take
 56

the country from bad to good; his transformational rhetoric, framed in the African American
jeremiad, attempted to put to death the sin of racism and classism.  
Bobbitt (2004) points out that “Purification through transcendence and through
images of change, movement, and dramatic catharsis – have been almost totally ignored by
rhetorical critics” (p. 10), but Obama utilized his transformational rhetoric to encourage
citizens to convert the current state of the nation into a better one.  In his campaign rhetoric,
Obama invoked a multi-step process to achieve purification. First, Americans must actively
engage in the political process and vote. Next, Americans must vote for him in order to
transcend into a purified America by electing the first African American president,
The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in
one year or even one term, but America – I have never been more hopeful than I
am tonight that we will get there. I promise you – we as a people will get there.
(Obama, 2008, November 4)
Finally, once he is in office, they must continue to support him in order to improve the
culture by following his vision and therefore changing policy. Obama’s victory is both
symbolic of and the actualization of America’s transcendence of change, he was able to
motivate Americans into action by going to the voting booths, and then he himself became
the fulfillment of the purification movement. 

RACIAL STALEMATE 
Only moments into his speech Out of Many, One, Obama (2004) articulated that any
race and heritage can persevere in America, explaining the hope and faith his parents held for
the nation, “They would give me an African name, Barack, or ‘blessed,’ believing that in a
tolerant America your name is no barrier to success.” This is the African American jeremiad
demonstrating the sins of the past can be left in the past, forgiven, and used for good in order
to change and improve individuals, the culture, and the government. His transformational
rhetoric portrays the hope of something better to come in the future.  
Obama’s rhetoric, through a white versus black perspective and experiences in
American culture, is transformational leadership via transformational rhetoric because he is
ultimately bridging that gap to unite the races to meet a common goal. Obama’s rhetoric
addresses the emotional ramifications affiliated with each of the races:  
Anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working – and
middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly
 57

privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as

they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from
scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs
shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. . . . When they
hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a
spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never
committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods
are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time. (Obama, 2008, March 18) 
Holding all parties accountable for their behavior and perceptions, Obama arouses feelings of
guilt in an effort to stimulate change in both perspectives and align into one common vision –
his vision. He rebukes both races saying, “Black anger often proved counterproductive, so
have these white resentments” (Obama, 2008, March 18).  
Obama’s rhetoric does not just stop with the bad news, but provides a solution, the
path to transform the situation,
In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging
that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of
black people; that the legacy of discrimination – and current incidents of
discrimination, while less overt than in the past – are real and must be
addressed. Not just with words but with deeds. (Obama, 2008, March 18)
Obama strives to unite the races through intellectual appeals, by curtailing the emotional
aspects of the race issue.  
Obama (2008, March 18) uses an interesting approach in his rhetoric by scolding
whites, while simultaneously empathizing with them, “to the larger aspirations of all
Americans – the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose
been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family.” In this he appeals to a variety of races
by showing whites have been wronged too, possessing an ability to “Unpack the racial
irritations gnawing at many whites” (Drehle, 2008) and communicating it is time for
transformation.  
He also holds the African American population responsible for the present and future,
“For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past
without becoming victims of our past” (Obama, 2008, March 18). Bobbitt (2004) explains,
Black guilt differs from white guilt in that black guilt grows out of African
Americans’ historical status as an oppressed minority. An oppressed minority
will often feel guilt and shame because it comes to accept the negative image of
itself held up to it by the dominant majority. (p. 43)
But Obama strives to push past the “historical status” to form a new balance among diversity.  
 58

Martin Luther King, Jr.’s rhetoric “cleanses black guilt by transforming the very
conditions of that guilt, oppression and socioeconomic inferiority, into a virtue” becoming
“virtuous martyrs who suffered in order to redeem America of its sins” (Bobbitt, 2004, p.
43).  Similarly, Obama tailors his rhetoric to accommodate the different perspectives and
internal struggles for various races. Later Obama (2008, March 18) bridges the race gap
even more saying,
It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the
expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of
black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.
Again, his unification theme is carried through the topics of race and political policy. 
Obama’s transformational rhetoric first points out the sins of the nation, then offers
repentance to restore the nation through racial unity,
The future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic
children and Native American children. . . . That those kids who don’t look like
us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they
are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not
this time. (Obama, 2008, March 18)
This is transformational leadership and transformational rhetoric because it demands both
individual and communal commitment to stop this trend. This transformational leadership
and transformational rhetoric encourages working together toward a common goal and vision
that Obama will lead to morph into one demographic group – Americans.
Obama rhetorically paints a united vision to inspire collective transformation and
unity of a diverse America to begin the change, “men and women of every race… to
Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life” (Obama, 2008, March 18).
His transformational rhetoric uses patriotism, rather than superficial demographics as
common ground for unification, “This time we want to talk about the men and women of
every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the
same proud flag” (Obama, 2008, March 18), he articulates how diverse individuals unite
comprise the heart of America. 
The function of transformational rhetoric is to motivate and inspire all citizens
regardless of race into social change- stimulating action. Similar to Martin Luther King Jr.,
Obama was seeking “fundamental change and progress on the national level… Grounded in
optimism about America and its future” (Howard-Pitney, 1990, p. 146). The ultimate goal in
 59

a presidential campaign is to drive citizens to vote for a candidate, so although the people
have the power and authority to make the change, the rhetor must communicate to energize
them into action.  
In conclusion, Obama utilized transformational leadership through transformational
rhetoric, inspirational and compelling oratory that transformed a divided and diverse
America into a unified America (majority votes at the poll booths), rendering a truce (at least
temporarily) in the racial stalemate on Election Day, which resulted in the first African
American President of the United States.
 60

CHAPTER 4

DISCUSSION

This chapter will briefly reflect back on the leadership and communication topics
covered in this thesis, then suggest theoretical and practical implications, limitations, and
future research opportunities. While there are a plethora of conclusions one can invoke, I
will focus on three primary areas: enactment, communication, and leadership. These three
elements morph into a powerful combination when synergized.

ENACTMENT, COMMUNICATION, LEADERSHIP

This case study made various assumptions. First, it broadly presumes that both
communication and leadership skills can be taught. Second, it assumes Obama’s enactment
(Campbell, 1996) worked in his favor when seeking the Presidential office by allowing him
to reach a broader audience through his multiracial background (Campbell, 1996; Drehle,
2008; Renshon; 2008). Third, I make the assumption that Obama’s communication was the
primary factor in his election, while acknowledging his race via enactment and the use of the
African American jeremiad (Howard-Pitney, 1990; Moses, 1982) contributed to his rhetoric
and leadership. Fourth, this research assumes Obama’s communication style was intentional.
And finally, this research presumes that transformational rhetoric, specifically, is a
requirement for transformational leadership (Barbuto & Burbach, 2006; Bradford & Cohen,
1984; Bromley & Kirschner-Bromley, 2007; Kezar & Eckel, 2008; Rowold & Heinitz, 2007;
Seltzer & Bass, 1990) to be activated.
Drawing from the above assumptions, it might be argued that successful leaders are
often good communicators since some of the greatest rhetoricians were also great leaders
such as: Martin Luther King Jr., Billy Graham, and President Ronald Reagan (coined the
“great communicator”), but more research is needed to determine whether or not “good
communicators” are using enactment and transformational rhetoric in their leadership.
Further research might uncover if there is a common style of rhetoric among successful
leaders.
 61

This thesis provided a micro view on one leader, one rhetor via a case study on
Barack Obama, but many of these transformational leadership and rhetorical principles are
sought after skills by various disciplines and can be applied generally on a macro scale.
Though the roadmap for success will likely vary from leader to leader due to the dynamic
nature of each individual’s background and experience, the transformational leader would
seek to utilize enactment first and through their own personal story strive to connect to the
audience on mutually familiar topics. From a place of common ground, the foundation for
change is established and the transformational journey begins.
So although Obama’s story is unique to him, the concept of employing enactment as
the platform to appeal to followers can be applied universally. Whether the leader’s
enactment has to do with race, education, experiences, family, religion, career path and so
forth; a biographical connection fosters camaraderie through communication with would-be-
followers, which ultimately culminates in transformational leadership.
The formula for success includes enactment, communication and transformational
leadership. The type of communication might not be the African American or African
American jeremiad, but rather a frame work that is true to the rhetor to build the narrative
and association with the audience. This concept leads to broad theoretical and practical
implications for scholars in both the fields of communication and leadership.

THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS
While a broad spectrum of theoretical implications could be drawn from this
research, I will focus on one, the most important avenue to pursue in my view and the most
profound finding of this thesis. The main theoretical implication that can be drawn from this
research is in respect to the relationship between communication and leadership. I believe
the correlation between rhetoric and leadership is more cohesive and tightly woven together
than the current body of research offers. I advocate transformational rhetoric is essential for
transformational leadership to occur. Using transformational rhetoric as the cornerstone for
transformational leadership may help scholars and leaders motivate, move, and enact their
vision rather than simply listing characteristics and experiences that make an individual
qualified for the job. Through refined communication skills, leaders would be equipped to
demonstrate, utilize, perform, and apply transformational leadership, rather than just defining
 62

it. By persuading the masses through communication, leaders can drive followers’ actions
toward the vision with a clear plan and course of action.
Transformational rhetoric informs us about transformational leadership, showing how
people become transformational leaders, how leader’s communication contributes to or
hampers change in followers, and how communication can be a tool for leaders.  The
theoretical contribution is the idea that transformational rhetoric provides a new perspective
by looking at the rhetoric embedded in leadership and may augment, broaden, and expand
scholars understanding of leadership styles. Through a critical analysis of the rhetoric used
by leaders, scholars can better reflect on, grow, and equip more effective transformational
leaders by improving and incorporating communication as a contributing factor to their
goals.  Further research on the correlation between communication and leadership will enrich
the understanding of them both.  
This study contributes to both the fields of communication and leadership on multiple
levels- it will help scholars, leaders, or would be leaders, and also aids followers to better
understand their leaders. Transformational rhetoric provides a clearer understanding,
heuristically and theoretically, about leadership and what makes it work. It furthers the field
of communication by examining not only the definition of the transformational leadership
model, but also by providing a possible means to become a transformational leader. Through
clear and decisive communication, leaders can more effectively rally citizens, employees,
faculty, and other followers in support of their vision. Limited studies have been done on the
rhetorical aspects of transformational leadership, but rhetoric is an essential element to
understanding leadership. What one says is the main component for potential followers to
assess what a leader will do once in a position of authority. As transformational leadership
moves forward, communication skills necessarily must progress too. Rhetoric is adaptable
and therefore transformational by nature, so by mastering communication a person is more
likely to become an effective transformational leader.   
This research advances not only the field of communication and how to apply
communication to leadership, but it also advances the leadership discipline, by showing
transformational leadership simply will not work without communication. There is limited
literature with the perspective of transformational rhetoric as a method for transformational
leadership.  
 63

In this thesis I’ve considered a variety of elements in Obama’s speeches leading up to

the 2008 election: hope, change, innovation, a call to action, repetition in rhetoric,
motivation, unification, the American jeremiad and the African American jeremiad all of
which were communicated and thus contributed to his transformational leadership. I
reference Obama’s use of transformational rhetoric, reinforcing the notion that a
transformational leader must be a transformational communicator. While there are
limitations to my research, these limitations point to practical implications as well as a
direction for future research.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
There are a multitude of practical implications a reader can draw from this study, but
I will focus on one point of interest, which is the idea that communication and leadership can
be taught (Northouse, 2007). This one implication alone opens the door for a variety of
practical applications for potential advancement of those two fields of discipline.
This single practical implication, the ability to teach and then synergize
communication with leadership, specifically transformational rhetoric coupled with
transformational leadership, has potential to improve both a person’s communication and
leadership skills, which could have far reaching impacts in the individual’s personal,
vocational, and educational areas of life. The combination of transformational rhetoric and
transformational leadership skills can be applied when seeking leadership opportunities and
also can be used in order to implement changes within an organization.
People are unlikely to follow unless they know where they are headed; so
communicating is essential because it informs followers about a leader’s values, goals, and
vision, equipping them to assess and discern what lies ahead based on communication.
Conversely, the person appears to be a better leader when they are an adept communicator
who can smoothly articulate and convey an idea with convicting, and inspiring rhetoric; traits
that align with transformational leadership characteristics. Communication, specifically
transformational rhetoric, provides the explanation for how people can become
transformational leaders. If communication skills can be taught through education at toast
masters, academic programs in communication, and other types of training programs, then
communication might be the solution to becoming a better leader. This mirrors the
 64

theorization of rhetoric as an art, something that can be taught (Northouse, 2007). If so, then
skilled communicators, whether taught or by natural ability, would have the potential to use
their communication competencies to achieve desired leadership positions by transforming
minds, concepts, policies and such initiatives through their communication.
The practical application of teaching the skill of transformational rhetoric include:
enabling leaders to achieve their ultimate goal, whether an election into office, an initiative to
change policy, an attempt to introduce a new model or business plan at a company, and
numerous other vocational agendas. A practical application would be to add communication
courses to academic curriculum focused on leadership and business. Further research might
confirm that communication has a direct impact on the success of leadership; the field of
communication has potential to advance from somewhat of a “soft” art to a “hard” tactical
skill directly related to effective leadership and prosperous business outcomes.
This approach is innovative for both the field of communication and the field of
leadership; my hope is that a critical analysis of the rhetoric used by leaders will provide a
practical understanding of leadership styles as well as emphasize the value of effective
communication in leadership positions. This case study provides at least one practical
implication to scholars and leaders by offering the means to effective leadership is through
communication, while communication delivers the tool necessary to seek, achieve and
potentially maintain leadership positions as organizations adapt and change over time.

LIMITATIONS 
While there are various limitations in this research, I will focus on: the rhetor, the
medium of communication (transformational rhetoric), the circumstances, and the artifacts
analyzed herein, as these limitations point to opportunities for future research. The first
limitation is the rhetor. There is only one Barack Obama, so the study does not have efficacy
since the case study was narrow in scope, focusing on one individual leader and his
communication. The rhetor was also limited because while there are thousands of CEOs,
teachers, and other such leaders available, there are few Presidential candidates and only one
President ultimately. So supplementary research would be valuable to augment the theory
suggesting utilization of transformational rhetoric would be effective in other individuals and
vocations as well. The rhetor is also limited in that he is an American speaking to an
 65

American audience, so it would be interesting to learn the effectiveness of transformational

leadership and transformational rhetoric when used by senior dignitaries in other countries,
so additional research on an international scope would greatly augment my theory.
Another way this research is limited by the rhetor is that it concentrates only on the
rhetoric communicated directly by Obama. But the argument could be made that a poor
communicator could utilize a surrogate spokesperson such as a Publicist, a Public Relations
agent, Press Secretary, and other such communication professionals to make up for or
conceal poor communication skills or lack of leadership for that matter. While I suspect
hearing the message from the source, the one who will be making the decisions and will have
the authority once in the position of leadership is likely more powerful than hearing it from a
spokesperson, this research is limited by the organic communication by Obama, leaving
room for future research regarding the cumulative impact of both the rhetor and secondary
order affects by surrogate communicators. More research is needed in the area of
communication to verify whether or not transformational rhetoric is just as effective from a
surrogate spokesperson as from the actual leader.
Second, this research is limited by the form of communication. It might be argued
that it was Obama’s unique use of enactment rhetoric (communicating his background and
heritage) that was the change agent for his transformational leadership (vice the use of
transformational rhetoric). If his enactment rhetoric was more impactful than the
transformational rhetoric, then that would restrict duplication of this case study since
enactment is unique to the individual.
Enactment within this study has its limitations too, for example, the African
American jeremiad is unlikely to be effective coming from a non-African American or
multinational leader. The American jeremiad, however, likely could be applied by a broader
spectrum of races to an American audience, because all Americans share the slave history,
are patriotic, and typically have optimistic hope for the American Dream. Additional
research on key leaders of different genders, races, sexual orientations, or religions would
provide further evidence on the effectiveness of a particular type of rhetoric a person
employs within their transformational leadership. More research may uncover a different
style or even a diverse combination of rhetoric is just as powerful as transformational
rhetoric in conjunction with the American and African American jeremiads discussed herein.
 66

Third, this study was limited to a unique set of circumstances unlikely to be

replicated. Further research is needed to see if these results can be applied to other
circumstances; however, the idea of using transformational rhetoric within the
transformational leadership style translates to a wide array of situations. This case study has
a very specific set of circumstances that worked for Obama, but the broad concepts could be
applied theoretically to a variety of scenarios. Although I contend both leadership and
communication can be taught, further research on other leaders may validate if Obama’s
approach could be duplicated by another leadership figure, in another moment in time, to
another audience, and for a different leadership position. The strongest evidence that
Obama’s rhetoric and leadership were transformational was that he was the first African
American elected as President, “It’s been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what
we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America”
(Obama, 2008, November 4). However, the standard of “success” for transformational
leadership and rhetoric requires further research. This research marks success as election
into the Presidency, but perhaps even if he had not won the campaign there would still be
measurable levels of “success” via transformed minds across American in various topics he
was promoting. Also, this research is limited by the examination of transformational rhetoric
used within Presidential and political leadership, further analysis on transformational rhetoric
applied to various types of leaders in a different sets of circumstances would further the
concept and contribution to communication and leadership research.
Finally, this thesis was restricted to a select set of speeches. This research omitted a
focused analysis of his communication in the books he authored prior his presidential run.
This study lacks analysis comparing Obama’s rhetoric between his first and second
campaigns for the presidency, so additional analysis on supplemental artifacts would reveal
if his communication style changed or was consistent from one campaign to the next. Either
way, research is needed to determine if his rhetoric was equally effective because it was
transformational or because he was the incumbent.
In conclusion, although many limitations could be identified in this research, the four
areas I focused on were limitations in regard to the rhetor, limitations in respect to the style
and method of communication analyzed in this case study, limitations dictated by the
circumstances, and the limited number of artifacts featured herein. There is great potential to
 67

expand existing research by testing these theories on additional rhetors, by investigating

other means of communication that may have contributed to transformational leadership, by
exploring transformational rhetoric and its effectiveness in other the circumstances, and
dissecting and analyzing additional rhetorical artifacts by Obama. The concept of examining
rhetoric in leadership furthers both the field of communication and leadership studies, which
warrants consideration for future research.

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 

There is potential for future research in a wide array of areas discussed in this thesis,
but I suggest a focus on the same four areas of limitations mentioned above. I put forth the
following areas of consideration for future research: the rhetor, communication,
circumstances, and artifacts.
First, future research could expand this case study by critically analyzing different
leaders than Obama, to see if my theories run true for other people who also achieved a high
level of leadership. I recommend future research to analyze the communication of other
leaders to include other Presidents, CEOs, teachers, Managers, military admirals and
generals, and other such executive leaders. Did they also use transformational rhetoric in
their communication or does it seem they utilized another method of communication to make
their way to the top? Compiling quantitative data on a variety of leaders would contribute to
both the fields of communication and leadership by identifying shared methods of rhetoric
and leadership styles across the leaders to help determine if they were accomplished leaders
because of their communication abilities or because of some other factor.
The second area ripe for future research is communication. To take this theory one
step further, a more in depth inquiry is needed to determine if in fact transformational
rhetoric and transformational leadership are one in the same, or perhaps are
interchangeable. Also, a person might consider if the order of these is relevant- which came
first, leadership or communication skills? Do excellent communication skills lead to the rise
of leaders or do leaders acquire the ability for adept communication as they progress through
a career path? And do expert communicators trend toward leadership positions? These
answers have potentially to significantly impact and progress the field of communication.  
 68

Third, future research should be done on the circumstances during which leaders
were catapulted into top positions in their organization by investigating the history, the
environment, and the challenges during the time period leading up to an individual’s
appointment or election to a senior leadership position. Were these leaders pursuing a
leadership position at a time when the situation was tumultuous, thus a fresh outlook was
welcome? Perhaps the nation was just ready for a change and wanted a completely different
type of leader after eight years under President Bush, paving the way for Obama to enter the
scene and give eager Americans what they were looking for . . . a different political party,
different policies, a different world view, and a different race. Potentially part of Obama’s
campaign strategy had to do with capitalizing on the frustration of the nation at the time,
“Transformational leaders are skilled at working simultaneously with strategy and culture to
achieve ‘fit’ ” (Simpson & Beeby, 1993, p. 317). Further research is needed to discern how
the political environment at the time may have contributed to Obama’s election. Research
and analysis to identify the differences in his rhetoric and leadership style (if any) between
his first campaign and his second election would also add to this concept as mentioned in the
limitations section. Although transformational rhetoric worked in Obama’s environment, an
election, perhaps another style of communication would be needed in a different situation;
further research would help determine if a person needs a tool box of communication options
that can be applied to a variety of circumstances accordingly. Another angle of interest for
future research would be to examine the circumstances and environment leading up to the
firing of executive leaders to determine what method of rhetoric was being employed prior to
their demise.
Finally, future researchers could add to this study by analyzing other products of
communication delivered by Obama outside those covered in this case study. Critically
analyzing other speeches and even other types of communication tools such as TV and radio
commercials used during the campaign, debates, marketing products, blogs, and websites by
Obama would help discern if transformational rhetoric was the mode of communication
utilized consistently or not. I contend that communication can’t just be talk, it can’t just be
words, this is not a case study on linguistics but rather, transformational rhetoric that
resonates with the audience, inspiring and motivating listeners to follow a vision. There is a
human connection, not just persuasive language. Anyone can talk, but to communicate is to
 69

connect to and commiserate with individuals (the potential followers) sought after by the
leader, so examining more communication artifacts by Obama would add efficacy to this
research.
I hope this thesis will push forward both the fields of communication and
leadership. Helping scholars to think about leadership not just as a style such as charismatic
leadership, transactional leadership, and others, nor merely a list of certain criteria, attributes,
or characteristics to place leaders in a particular category, but rather, to offer communication
as the means for becoming an effective leader and for cultivating supporters.  

CONCLUSION 
In this case study, I identified characteristics that contributed to transformational
leadership in each of Obama’s speeches: hope, a case for change, innovation, a call to action,
repetitive rhetoric, motivation, unification, American jeremiad, and African American
jeremiad. All of these utilized transformational rhetoric in support of his transformational
leadership and ultimately his vision for the nation.  
Despite the extensive research on transformational leadership, there is very little
theorization about how to become a transformational leader or how transformational
leadership is carried out. I believe the way to close that gap is to consider the
communication contribution to successful leadership more closely. Communicating
transformational ideas is how transformational leadership is enacted. This rhetoric of change
is a close subcategory of transformational leadership, my hope is to further the
transformational leadership model by expanding it to include communication as part of the
construct.
The interplay between the characteristics of transformational leadership is also
important,
Leadership requires the ability to implement pursuit of the vision. Inspiration
without implementation is provocation, not leadership. Implementation without
inspiration is management or administration, not leadership. Therefore, leaders
must be both creative –in order to inspire- and courageous- in order to induce
implementation. (Ackoff, 1999, p. 21)
Although this is a poetic explanation, it still fails to offer how to lead, inspire, or implement
transformational leadership. I contend communication via transformational rhetoric is the
necessary element to do all these things.  
 70

Transformation requires conscious choices coupled with intentional actions by

participants, resulting in a movement. The movement either supports the rhetor or the
movement acts in opposition to the rhetor. In Obama’s campaign leading up to the election,
inaction by citizens would have been detrimental to his campaign, as he needed citizens to
take action (vote) in order for his transformational leadership to be effective. In Obama’s
campaign, the first step in his transformational vision was to get eligible voters to the poll
booth, which takes action and effort. According to the Huffington Post website, the 2008
election stimulated a 14% increase in Democrats registering to vote than in 2004, with more
than 130 million voters in 2008, far exceeding the 2004 election which had only 122 million
citizens turnout to the voting booths (Barr, 2008). Democrats, youth, and African Americans
reportedly comprised the majority of the newly registered voters. Arguably, Obama
succeeded in moving voters to the voting booths as he promoted participation throughout his
campaign. Since he was able to move citizens to register and to vote, he had the potential to
transform the nation to align with his vision as well. 
Various elements of transformational leadership were evident in Obama’s rhetoric; he
communicated his vision of change, unification, his hope for a better future and a better
country. Obama’s use of the American jeremiad and the African American jeremiad led to
successful leadership because of his communication skills, which were primarily
transformational rhetoric. I contend that his background, unique heritage, and multi-racial
perspective lent credibility to his African American jeremiad messages, but it was his ability
to communicate his vision and diverse background that allowed him to connect with
Americans and ultimately persuaded them to move in his direction. Examining his rhetoric
at the most basic level, people can see how his communication contributed overall to his
transformational leadership. His transformational rhetoric embeds the vision of “change,”
which Obama included in all the speeches in this case study. Examples of his change
rhetoric include phrases such as “call for action,” “drive and innovation,” and “revive,” all of
which conjure the idea of transformation or change and require active participation by the
cohorts to create movement in his direction (Obama, 2009, February 24). 
Through simple slogans such as “change,” which equates to transformation, a
narrative of “hope,” which also implies change through the hope of something different,
something better, he framed his vision. His passion and charisma stimulated emotion,
 71

coupled with cognitive persuasion and repetition within his rhetoric re-enforced the action he
was seeking from followers; they needed to vote for him in order to transform the nation. It
takes action for an organization (country in this case) to achieve the vision, “A rhetoric of
hope also entails an important persuasion campaign. Senator Obama really wants more
people to participate in the political process and ultimately to vote for him” (Atwater, 2007,
p. 123).  
Obama’s transformational leadership stemmed from and was actualized through
communication. His transformational leadership was his communication. Communicating
his vision, communicating the action necessary to bring that vision into reality, and
communicating why such change was important and necessary for the continued
improvement of both individuals and the nation at large. 
Communication is the necessary foundation for a leader to successfully transform the
community, the people, the policy, and other initiatives. Unless people can effectively
articulate the vision and communicate the road to that vision, then I contend they will not be
a successful transformational leader. Transformational leadership is not attainable without
communication. Communication is the essential ingredient to be an effective leader. Simply
put, leadership is communication. In order to lead, people must be able to effectively
communicate where they will lead. In addition, actions by the leader must support the
communication; there are many clichés to this end, such as “lead by example” and “practice
what you preach.” So people might conclude that leadership and communication go hand-in-
hand, without one, the other is not at its full potential.
The majority of current theories are lacking the element of communication when
defining transformational leadership. I hope transformational rhetoric will assist leaders by
providing a practical tool to become more effective in both reaching their goals and
implementing their vision. It may also contribute to other models of leadership by
encouraging scholars in the leadership discipline to consider rhetoric as an element of
leadership by assessing how rhetoric and its intent can be used to enact the desired style of
leadership simply by articulating it through communication! 
I hope to further the field of communication by encouraging future analysis of
transformational leadership, to include communication as part of the definition. Not just any
style of communication, but specifically transformational rhetoric. This research is intended
 72

to advance not only the field of communication but also provide a tool for those seeking
leadership positions by teaching a specific communication style, that of transformational
rhetoric, and how to apply it to transformational leadership.
 73

REFERENCES

Ackoff, R. L. (1999). Transformational leadership. Strategy & Leadership, 27, 20-25.

Amernic, J., Craig, R., & Tourish, D. (2007). The transformational leader as pedagogue, 
physician, architect, commander, and saint: Five root metaphors in Jack Welch’s 
letters to stockholders of General Electric. Human Relations, 60, 1839-1872. 
Anderson, L. R. (1990). Toward a two-track model of leadership training: Suggestions from
self-monitoring theory. Small Group Research, 21, 147-167. 
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An 
examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the multifactor
leadership questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261-295.  
Arnett, R. C. (2011). Civic rhetoric-meeting the communal interplay of the provincial and the
cosmopolitan: Barack Obama’s Notre Dame speech, May 17, 2009. Rhetoric &
Public Affairs, 14, 631-672.
Atwater, D. F. (2007). Senator Barack Obama: The rhetoric of hope and the American
dream. Journal of Black Studies, 38, 121-129.
Avolio, B. J. (1994). The “natural”: Some antecedents to transformational
leadership. International Journal of Public Administration, 17, 1559-1581.  
Barbuto, J. E., & Burbach, M. E. (2006). The emotional intelligence of transformational 
leaders: A field study of elected officials. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 51-
64.  
Barbuto, J. E., Fritz, S. M., & Marx, D. (2000). A field study of two measures of work
motivation for predicting leader’s transformational behaviors. Psychological Report,
86, 295-300.  
Barr, A. (2008, November 5). 2008 Turnout shatters all records. Retrieved December 12,
2009. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15306.html
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the
vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19-31.
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional–transformational paradigm transcend
organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130-139.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1989). Potential biases in leadership measures: How
prototypes, leniency, and general satisfaction relate to ratings and rankings of
transformational and transactional leadership constructs. Educational and Psychology
Measurement, 49, 509-527.
 74

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990a). Developing transformational leadership: 192 and
beyond. Journal of European Industrial Training, 14, 21-27.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990b). The implications of transactional and transformational
leadership for individual, team, and organizational development. Research in
Organizational Change and Development, 4, 231–272.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness
through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., & Atwater, L. (1996). The transformational and transactional
leadership of men and women. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45, 5-
34.
Blanchard, K. (2000). Situational leadership: The four leadership styles. San Diego, CA: 
Ken Blanchard Companies. 
Bobbitt, D. A. (2004). The rhetoric of redemption: Kenneth Burke’s redemption drama and 
Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I have a dream” speech. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.  
Bercovitch, S. (1978). The American Jeremiad. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
Bradford, D. L., & Cohen, A. R. (1984). Managing for excellence. New York, NY: John
Wiley & Sons.
Bromley, H. R., & Kirschner-Bromley, V. A. (2007). Are you a transformational leader? The
Physician Executive, 33(6): 54-7.
Brummett, B. (1981). Burkean scapegoating, mortification, and transcendence in presidential
campaign rhetoric. Central States Speech Journal, 32, 254-264.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Campbell, K. K. (1996). The rhetorical act. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 
Chappell, K. (2004, August 16). Barack Obama: U.S. Senate candidate is electrifying
keynote speaker at Democratic National Convention. Jet magazine. Retrieved from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_7_106/ai_n6181399/?
tag=content;col1
CNN. (2008). Election center 2008. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/
ELECTION/2008/
Conger, J. A. (1989). The charismatic leader: Behind the mystique of exceptional
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic
leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637-647.
Conger, J. A., & Kanugo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cox, J. L. (2012). Politics in motion: Barack Obama’s use of movement metaphors.
American Communication Journal, 14, 1-13.
 75

Dilliplane, S. (2012). Race, rhetoric, and running for President: Unpacking the significance
of Barack Obama’s “a more perfect union” speech. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 15,
127-152.
Drehle, D. V. (2008, August 21). The five faces of Barack Obama. TIME in partnership with
CNN. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1834623,00.html
Dorsey, L. G. (2002). The presidency and rhetorical leadership. College Station, TX: Texas
A&M University.
Eby, L. T., Cader, J., & Noble, C. L. (2003). Why do high self-monitors emerge as leaders in 
small groups? A comparative analysis of the behaviors of high versus low self-
monitors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1457–1479.
Elahi, B., & Cos, G. (2005). An immigrant’s dream and the audacity of hope: The 2004 
convention addresses of Barack Obama and Arnold Schwarzenegger. The American
Behavioral Scientist, 49, 454-465. 
Felfe, J., Tartler, K., & Liepmann, D. (2004). Advanced research in the field of
transformational leadership. Zeitschrift fur Personalforschung, 18, 262-288. 
Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Advanced
Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 149-190.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hili.
Fiedler, F. E., & M. M. Chemers (1984). Improving leadership effectiveness: The leader
match concept (2nd edition). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Fiedler, F. E., & Garcia, J. E. (1987). New approaches to effective leadership: Cognitive
resources and organizational performance. New York, NY: Wiley.
Frank, D. A. (2011). Obama’s rhetorical signature: Cosmopolitan civil religion in the
Presidential Inaugural Address, January 20, 2009. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 14, 601-
630.
Freidman, H. S., Riggio, R. E., & Casella, D. F. (1988). Nonverbal skill, personal charisma,
and initial attraction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 203-211.
Frey, L. R., Gouran, D. S., & Poole, M. S. (1999). The handbook of group communication
theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.  
Gans, C., & Hussey, J. (2008). The primary turnout story: Presidential races miss record
high, senate and governor contests hit record low. AU Media Relations, Washington,
D.C. http://domino.american.edu/AU/media/mediarel.nsf/
1D265343BDC2189785256B810071F238/B796B031ADAEF173852574D4007BE93
A?OpenDocument
Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical 
perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23, 32-58. 
Gillespie, N. A., & Mann, L. (2004). Transformational leadership and shared values: The 
building blocks of trust. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 588-607. 
 76

Gray, S. (2008, November 6). What Obama’s election really means to black America. TIME
in partnership with CNN. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/printout/
0,8816,1857222,00.html
Harrell, W. J. (2010). The reality of American life has strayed from its myths. Journal of
Black Studies, 41, 164-183.
Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of
transformational and transactional leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 695-
702.
Historycentral.com. (2008). 2008 U.S. presidential election. Retrieved from
http://www.historycentral.com/elections/2008.html
Honig, B. (1998). How foreignness “solves” democracy’s problems. Social Text, 16, 1-28.  
House, R. J., Spangler, D. W., & Woycke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the U.S.
presidency: A psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 36, 364-396.
Howard-Pitney, D. (1990). The Afro-American jeremiad: Appeals for justice in America.
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. 
Howard-Pitney, D. (2005). The African-American jeremiad: Appeals for Justice in America.
Revised and expanded edition. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. 
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership,
locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated business-
unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891-902.
Howell, J. M., & Frost, P. J. (1989). A laboratory study of charismatic leadership. 
Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 43, 243-269. 
Huffington Post. (2008). 2008 seeing record voter turnout in state after state. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/10/2008-seeing-record-voter-_n_85917.html
Humphreys, J. H., & Einstein, W. O. (2003). Nothing new under the sun: Transformational  
leadership from a historical perspective. Management Decision, 41, 85-95. 
Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pederson, A., & Allen, W. A. (1999). Enacting diverse
learning environments: Improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity in higher
education.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ivie, R. (2011). Obama at West Point: A study in ambiguity of purpose. Rhetoric & Public
Affairs, 14, 727-760.
Kellner, D. (2009). Barack Obama and celebrity spectacle. The International Journal of
Communication, 3, 715-741. Retrieved from http://www.ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/
article/viewFile/559/350
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2008). Advancing diversity agendas on campus: examining
transactional and transformational presidential leadership styles. International
Journal of Leadership in Education, 11, 379-405.
 77

Kirkbride, P. (2006). Developing transformational leaders: the full range leadership model in 
action. Industrial and Commercial Training, 38, 23-32.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of
Management Executive, 5, 48-60. MD: University of Maryland.
Klein, J. (2006, October 15). The fresh face. TIME in partnership with CNN. Retrieved from
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1546362,00.html
Konorti, E., & Eng, P. (2008). The 3D transformational leadership model. The Journal of
American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 14, 10-20. 
Krishnan, V. R. (2001). Impact of transformational leadership on followers’ influence
strategies. The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25, 58-72.
Lee-Kelley, L. (2002). Situational leadership: Managing the virtual project team. The Journal
of Management Development, 21, 461-476. 
Lee-Kelley, L., & Loong, K. L. (2003). Turner’s five functions of project-based management
and situational leadership in IT services projects. International Journal of Project
Management, 21, 583-591.  
Leeman, R. W. (2006). Speaking as Jeremiah: Henry McNeal Turner’s “I claim the rights of
a man.” The Howard Journal of Communication, 17, 223-243.
Liu, M. (2008). Obama: Politician or celebrity? The Tech, 128, 6.
Lord, R. G., de Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation
between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity
between generalization procedures, Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 402–410.
Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationship between personality and performance in
small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 241–270.
McPhail, M. L., & McPhail, R. (2011). (E)raced men: Complicity and responsibility in the
rhetorics of Barack Obama. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 14, 673-692.
Minifee, P. (2013). Rhetoric of doom and redemption: Reverend Jermain Loguen’s
jeremiadic speech against the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. Advances in the History of
Rhetoric, 16, 29-57.
Moses, W. J. (1982). Black messiah’s and uncle Toms: Social and literary manipulations of a 
religious myth. University Park, IL: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Murphy, A. R. (2008). Prodigal nation: Moral decline and divine punishment from New
England to 9/11. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Murphy, J. M. (1990). A time of shame and sorrow: Robert F. Kennedy and the American
jeremiad. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 76, 401-414.
Murphy, J. M. (2011). Barack Obama, the exodus tradition, and the Joshua generation.
Quarterly Journal of Speech, 97, 387-410.
Musil, C., Garcia, M., Hudgins, C., Nettles, M., Sedlacek, E., & Smith, D. (1999). To form a
more perfect union: Campus diversity initiatives. Washington, D.C.: Association of
American Colleges and Universities.
 78

Nagourney, A. (2008, January 4). Obama takes Iowa in a big turnout as Clinton falters;
Huckabee victor. The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2008/
01/04/us/politics/04elect.html?pagewanted=print
The New York Times. (2007, December 29). Election results. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007/12/29/us/politics/20071229_OBAMA_TIM
ELINE.html?_r=0
The New York Times. (2008a, November 5). Exit polls. Retrieved from
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html
The New York Times. (2008b, November 5). National exit polls table. Retrieved from
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/national-exit-polls.html
Norris, W. R., & Vecchio, R. P. (1992). Situational leadership theory: Replication. Group &
Organizational Management, 17, 331-342.  
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership theory and practice (3rd ed.). Thousand Oak, London,
New Delhe: Sage.
Nye, J. (2008). Charisma and leadership. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-nye/charisma-and-leadership_b_99466.html
Obama, B. (2004). Dreams from my father: A story of race and inheritance. New York, NY:
Three Rivers Press. (Original work published 1995)
Obama, B. (2004, July 27). Out of many, one. Democratic National Convention, Boston,
Massachusetts. Retrieved from http://usliberals.about.com/od/
extraordinaryspeechs/a/ObamaSpeech.htm
Obama, B. (2006). The audacity of hope: Thoughts on reclaiming the American dream. New
York, NY: Crown.
Obama, B. (2007, April 23). The American moment. Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
Retrieved from http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/files/Event/
FY07_Multimedia/04_April_2007/The_American_Moment.aspx
Obama, B. (2008, March 18). A more perfect union: “The race speech.” Philadelphia, PA.
Retrieved from http://obamaspeeches.com/E05-Barack-Obama-A-More-Perfect-
Union-the -Race-Speech-Philadelphia-PA-March-18-2008.htm
Obama, B. (2008, August 28). The American promise. Acceptance speech DNC, Denver,
CO. Retrieved from http://obamaspeeches.com/E10-Barack-Obama-The-American-
Promise-Acceptance-Speech-at-the-Democratic-Convention-Mile-High-Stadium--
Denver-Colorado-August-28-2008.htm
Obama, B. (2008, November 4). Election night victory speech. Grant Park, Illinois. Retrieved
from http://obamaspeeches.com/E11-Barack-Obama-Election-Night-Victory-Speech-
Grant-Park-Illinois-November-4-2008
Obama, B. (2009, January 20). Inaugural Address. The United States Capitol in Washington,
D.C. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/inaugural-address/
 79

Obama, B. (2009, February 24). Remarks of President Barack Obama—Address to Joint

Session of Congress. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/
Remarks-of-President-Barack-Obama-Address-to-Joint-Session-of-Congress/
Pickler, N. (2007, February 11). Obama becomes youngest Democratic presidential
candidate, cites ability to unite; Fresh face in the field for 2008. The Associated Press.
Retrieved from http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07042/761200-176.stm
Ramage, J. D., & Bean, J. C. (1998). Writing Arguments (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn & Bacon, 81-82.
Renshon, S. A. (2008). Psychological reflections on Barack Obama and John McCain: 
Assessing the contours of a new presidential administration. Political Science
Quarterly 123, 391-433.  
Ripley, A. (2004, November 15). Obama’s ascent. Time. Retrieved from 
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,995609,00.html  
Ritter, K. W. (1980). American political rhetoric and the jeremiad tradition: Presidential
nomination acceptance addresses 1960-1976. Central States Speech Journal, 31, 153-
171.
Rowland, R. C. (2011). Barack Obama and the revitalization of public reason. Rhetoric &
Public Affairs, 14, 693-726.
Rowland, R. C., & Jones, J. M. (2007). Recasting the American dream and American
politics: Barack Obama’s keynote address to the 2004 Democratic National
Convention. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 93, 425-448.
Rowold, J., & Heinitz, K. (2007). Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing
the convergent, divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. The
Leadership Quarterly, 18, 212-133.
Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and 
consideration. Journal of Management, 16, 693-703.  
Shamir, B. (1991). The charismatic relationship: Alternative explanations and predictions.
Leadership Quarterly, 2, 81-104.  
Shamir, B. (1995). Social distance and charisma: Theoretical notes and an exploratory study. 
Leadership Quarterly, 6, 19-47.  
Simpson, P., & Beeby, M. (1993). Facilitating public sector organisational culture change
through the processes of transformational leadership: A study integration strategic
options development and analysis with the cultural values survey. Management
Education and Development, 24, 316-329.  
Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances, private realities: The psychology of self-monitoring.
New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company. 
Sorrentino, R. M., & Field, N. (1986). Emergent leadership over time: The functional value
of positive motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 356–368.
 80

Stephenson, W. (2010, March 23). American jeremiad: A manifesto. The New York Times.
Retrieved June 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/books/review/
Stephensont.html?pagewanted=all
Strange, J., & Mumford, M. (2002). The origin of vision: Charismatic versus ideological 
leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 343-377. 
Terrill, R. E. (2011). An uneasy peace: Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize lecture. Rhetoric
& Public Affairs, 14, 761-780.
Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1986). The transformational leader. New York, NY: John
Wiley & Sons.
Tucker, R. (1968). The theory of charismatic leadership. Daedalus, 97, 731-756.
Vander Lei, E., & Miller, K. D. (1999). Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I have a dream” in context: 
Ceremonial protest and African American jeremiad. College English, 62, 83-99.
Vecchio, R. P. (1987). Situational leadership theory: An examination of prescriptive theory.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 444-451. 
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American 
Psychologist, 62, 17-24. 
Walker, C. E., & Smithers, G. D. (2009). The preacher and the politician: Jeremiah Wright,
Barack Obama, and race in America. University of Virginia: Charlottesville and
London.
Weierter, S. J. M. (1997). Who wants to play “follow the leader?” A theory of charismatic 
relationships based on routinized charisma and follower characteristics. Leadership 
Quarterly, 8, 171-193.  
Whitehouse.gov. (2008). President Barack Obama. Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-obama
Wolffe, R. (2009). Renegade: The making of a President. New York, NY: Crown
Publishing.
Zeleny, J., & Connelly, M. (2008, January 27). Obama carries South Carolina by wide
margin. The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/us/
politics/27carolina.html?scp=10&sq=south+Carolina+Primary&st=nyt
Zernike, K. (2008, February). Follow me, the charisma mandate. The New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/weekinreview/17zernike.
html?pagewanted=al&_r=0