Leadership 2011 Sharma 3 26 1

http://lea.sagepub.com/Leadership

http://lea.sagepub.com/content/7/1/3The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1742715010386777

2011 7: 3LeadershipAbz Sharma and David Grant

Narrative, drama and charismatic leadership: The case of Apple's Steve Jobs

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:LeadershipAdditional services and information for

http://lea.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://lea.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://lea.sagepub.com/content/7/1/3.refs.htmlCitations:

at Swinburne Univ of Technology on April 5, 2011lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://lea.sagepub.com/

http://lea.sagepub.com/content/7/1/3

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://lea.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://lea.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://lea.sagepub.com/content/7/1/3.refs.html


Article

Narrative, drama andcharismatic leadership: Thecase of Apple’s Steve Jobs

Abz SharmaThe University of Sydney, Australia

David GrantThe University of Sydney, Australia

Abstract

This article argues that a leader’s narrative and storytelling skills play a critical role in constructing

their charismatic identity. In line with Goffman’s (1959) observations, we argue that these skills

are effected through ‘stage management’: a segregation between back and front ‘performing

regions’ that serves to minimise potential incursions, leaks, disruptions and faux pas that may

undermine the leader’s performance. Further, we suggest that Burke’s (1966) observations in

relation to the importance of scene setting offer important insights into the impact of leader

storytelling and narrative on followers. We revise and extend Gardner and Avolio’s (1998)

dramaturgical model of the charismatic relationship in order to reflect these observations, and

go on to apply this model to an analysis of three public performances by a case-study leader –

Steve Jobs, co-founder and CEO of Apple Inc. We examine Jobs’ performances as discursive texts,

exploring the ways in which he uses them, through stage management, to practice narrative and

storytelling and explore how, through these discursive activities, he is able to define himself and

his world for his followers. In doing so, we empirically demonstrate and extend the utility of the

dramaturgical metaphor to the study of charismatic leadership.

Keywords

charismatic leadership, dramaturgy, impression management, narrative and storytelling

Introduction

Charismatic leadership continues to hold fascination for both media commentators andscholars. This fascination has been driven by factors such as the emergence of a ‘new lead-ership’ paradigm (Bryman, 1992, 1993), and attempts to examine the role of leadership in

Corresponding author:

David Grant, The University of Sydney, Australia

Email: [email protected]

Leadership

7(1) 3–26

! The Author(s) 2011

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1742715010386777

lea.sagepub.com



relation to corporate scandals and declining company profits (Khurana, 2002). Further, andas Khurana (2002) notes, the image of charismatic leaders as ‘white knights’ has beenperpetuated by the media’s focus on business leadership in terms of ‘personalities’ and‘rudimentary narratives’.

In this article we argue that in order to better understand charismatic leadership we needto focus on two significant and interrelated issues. The first of these concerns the role ofnarrative and storytelling in constructing a leader’s charismatic identity. Narrative andstorytelling feature in organisational studies as ‘sense-making’ devices, comprising meaning-ful sequencing of ideas, actions or events in organisational life that are bound by a ‘plot’(Czarniawska, 1998; Salzer-Morling, 1998). While researchers have approached rhetoric,persuasion and impression management as processual phenomena (Awamleh andGardner, 1999; Gardner and Avolio, 1998; Garvin and Roberto, 2005), the important roleof narrative and storytelling, as vehicles through which leaders negotiate charismatic iden-tities with their followers, remains largely under-explored. Our article, we argue, addressesthis deficiency.

The second issue on which we focus pertains to charismatic leadership as performance.Despite much research on charismatic leadership, a limited body of empirical work existsthat appraises leadership in this respect (see Clark and Salaman, 1998; Mangham, 1990). Ofparticular note are Goffman’s (1959) and Burke’s (1966) seminal writings on dramaturgy.These studies show social and organisational life to comprise a series of complex interplaysbetween social actors who, through careful impression management ‘performances’, nego-tiate a desired social identity. Other scholars have, in various ways extended this work,examining the language, symbolism and motives underlying leader impression management(see Harvey, 2001; Mangham and Overington, 1987; Rosen, 1985; Walker and Monin,2001). While making valuable contributions to our understanding of leadership as perfor-mance, this body of work does not acknowledge the importance of what can be termed ‘stagemanagement’ to such behaviour. In particular, and in line with Goffman’s (1959) observa-tion, we argue that there is a segregation between back and front ‘performing regions’ thatserves to minimise potential incursions, leaks, disruptions and faux pas that may underminethe leader’s narrative and storytelling performances. We believe this stage-managed segre-gation plays a critical role in constructing the leader’s charismatic identity. We also suggestthat the value of dramaturgical approaches to the study of charismatic leadership may befurther enhanced by drawing on Burke’s (1966) work and his observations about scenesetting.

The remainder of this article is structured as follows. We begin by drawing on a numberof constructs associated with narrative and storytelling, as well as dramaturgy, in order toinform our understanding of charismatic leadership. As we do so, we build on and extendGardner and Avolio’s (1998) dramaturgical model of the charismatic relationship. In thenext section of the article we outline our approach and methodology. We then go on to useour revised model of the charismatic relationship in order to analyse three public perfor-mances by a case-study leader – Steve Jobs, co-founder and CEO of Apple Inc. We examinethese performances as discursive texts, exploring the ways in which Jobs uses them to prac-tice narrative and storytelling. This is followed by a section in which we explore how,through these discursive devices, Jobs is able to define himself and his world for hisfollowers. This section also demonstrates and extends the utility of the dramaturgicalmetaphor to the study of charismatic leadership in ways that have hitherto not been recog-nised. The final section of the article provides some summary and concluding comments.

4 Leadership 7(1)



Narrative, drama and charismatic leadership: A model

Charismatic leadership theory has evolved significantly since the early writings of Burns(1978), House (1977), Weber (1947), and others. For example, psychodynamic approacheshave revealed the Freudian, often narcissistic appeal of charisma (see Kets de Vries, 1988;Lindholm, 1988; Maccoby, 2000), while follower-centric approaches assert that charisma canbe modelled as a social contagion process (Meindl, 1990).

The nature of the relationship between charismatic leaders and followers has been furtherexplored where studies have drawn on broader understandings of leadership as performanceand have brought into focus the construct of impression management (Clark and Salaman,1998; Harvey, 2001; Mangham, 1990; Mangham and Overington, 1987; Rosen, 1985;Walker and Monin, 2001). These studies have often drawn on the influential writings ofGoffman (1959, 1974) and Burke (1966, 1989). A notable example of this approach isGardner and Avolio’s (1998) dramaturgical model of the charismatic relationship. Themodel conceives charismatic leaders as ‘actors’ and followers as the ‘audience’, arguingthat the meanings ascribed to their respective identities are socially constructed through‘identification processes’ (Schlenker, 1985). According to Gardner and Avolio (1998), char-ismatic leaders draw extensively on impression management (IM) in order to construct theiridentities, and their efforts to do so can be subdivided into four phases: framing, scripting,staging, and performing. ‘Framing’ refers to how the leader’s communication constructsmeaning and reality for both themselves and followers (Fairhurst and Sarr, 1996).‘Scripting’ identifies the actors (casting), the use of a rhetorical device (dialogue), as wellas physical and emotional cues (direction) that supply meaning to a communication ‘event’.The term ‘staging’ is deployed in reference to a melange of items, including symbols; settings;physical appearance; props and other physical artefacts; performing regions and stage man-agement; and audiences. Finally, ‘performing’ refers to the ‘actual enactment of scriptedbehaviours and relationships’ (Gardner and Avolio, 1998: 44), principally through exempli-fication; self, vision and organisational promotion; and facework. It is important to note thatunder this model, audience members are not ‘passive targets’ or receptacles for performancesby the leader. Rather, they are active participants in the leader’s performance, and in sodoing, renegotiate the charismatic leader’s image through a series of continuous, iterativeand recursive processes (Bass, 1988; Conger and Kanungo, 1987, 1998; Gardner and Avolio,1998).

Gardner and Avolio’s (1998) framework has done much to advance the purchase of thedramaturgical perspective in charismatic leadership studies (see Harvey, 2001). Nonetheless,it exhibits, in our view, two key limitations. First, it overlooks the value of narrative andstorytelling to leader IM behaviours, considering it only in passing as a rhetorical effectduring the ‘scripting’ phase. We argue that leader IM is intrinsically linked to narrative andstorytelling that, through analogy, anecdote, metaphor and symbol, forge the charismaticrelationship. Second, it fails to highlight the importance of Goffman’s (1959) notion ofperforming regions (that is, the front and backstage) and ‘stage management’ as a strategyto cultivate and maintain the leader’s charismatic image. Instead, these issues are concealedwithin the ‘staging’ and ‘performing’ phases of leader IM. At the same time these performingregions are considered to be the ‘environment’ within which the charismatic relationship isformed. It would seem to us that the term ‘environment’ undermines the purchase of thedramaturgical metaphor upon which Gardner and Avolio’s model rests. We thereforeadvocate replacing this term with Burke’s (1966) more appropriate term of ‘scene’.

Sharma and Grant 5



In the remainder of this section, we build on and extend Gardner and Avolio’s (1998)dramaturgical model of the charismatic relationship in order to address these limitations.

Narrative and storytelling

While narrative and storytelling research is often charged with privileging the ‘meaning’ ofexperience over logic and argument (Eisenhardt, 1991; Rhodes and Brown, 2005a), itcontinues to make important contributions to our understanding of management and orga-nisation (Czarniawska, 1998; Johnstone, 2004; van Maanen, 1988). These have includedcontributions that have enhanced the study and practice of leadership. For example, severalstudies have provided theoretical accounts of how leaders make use of stories with greater orlesser impact (Gabriel, 1997; Schwabenland, 2006), while others have sought to advise onhow leaders might go about improving their storytelling performances (Allan et al., 2002;Armstrong, 1992; Denning, 2005; Simmons, 2002).

In its simplest form, a narrative or story seeks to make sense of the social and naturalworld by identifying the significance of people, places, objects, and events in time. Gabriel(2004) notes that a narrative is a unique communication, as it privileges meaning constructedthrough temporal chains of interrelated events or actions undertaken by characters. That is,a narrative is meaningfully sequenced through a plot, comprising an ‘original state ofaffairs’, a complicating action or catalyst (i.e. an idea or event), and a ‘consequent stateof affairs’ (Culler, 1981; Czarniawska, 1998; 1999; Johnstone, 2004; Ochs, 1997; Weick,1995). Similarly, a story adheres to the narrative form and is bound by a plot, yet it isoften a product of creative imagination. While stories may not depart from the facts, theyoften seek to reveal a deeper meaning within them (Bruner, 1990; Burke, 1966; Goffman,1974; Ochs, 1997; Ricoeur, 1984).

Much like storytellers, charismatic leaders routinely ‘sense-make’ facts and events tosatisfy a plot, which several writers argue is a reflection upon the audience’s own wantsand needs (Boje, 1994; Czarniawska, 1998; Rhodes and Brown, 2005b). To ‘manufacture’meaning, storytellers avail themselves to a number of creative devices, including the attri-bution of motives; establishment of causal links; attribution of responsibility for somethingto a subject or object; union of characters; attribution of fixed qualities; expression ofemotion; denotation of agency; and the proclamation of providence (Gabriel, 2000: 36).Paralleling leader–follower relations, the issue of ‘truth’ in narrative and storytelling enlivensthe notion of a ‘psychological contract’ between the storyteller and audience. Gabriel (2004)asserts that ‘the truth of stories lies in their meaning, not in their accuracy’, and as such, theemergent nature of the storyteller–audience ‘narrative contract’ renders it fragile. In short,while there may be some ‘stretching’ of the truth, narratives and stories must retain somequality of realism or believability for them to resonate with the audience.

Several studies of leaders as storytellers have adopted a specifically dramaturgicalperspective. Mangham’s (1990) comparative analysis of former Chrysler CEO LeeIacocca’s keynote speeches and testimony at US Senate committee hearings andnineteenth-century Shakespearean actor Edmund Kean’s depiction of Richard III is agood illustration. Mangham likens their inspired delivery of a ‘script’, and equal enthusiasmto depart from it as: ‘a triadic collusion between text, performer and audience’ (1990: 112).In like fashion, Salzer-Morling (1998) provides a narratological case study of Swedishfurniture giant Ikea, in which she spotlights the storytelling of founder Ingvar Kamprad’sremarkable life and career. Kamprad’s ‘rags-to-riches’ story speaks of humble beginnings

6 Leadership 7(1)



and infinite curiosity; a breakthrough idea to sell quick-assembly furniture at low cost;scepticism and hostility from rivals; success; and finally, the global expansion of Ikea.While embellished and mythologised over time, it is a heroic narrative that locatesKamprad’s own self-concept, his vision, and Ikea’s organisational identity. So much so, infact, that in 1984 Kamprad chronicled the story in an 80-page booklet for all employees,which continues to be retold at internal training seminars (Salzer-Morling, 1998).

Narrative and storytelling can thus be seen as a complementary, mutually constructivemode of inquiry into the link between charismatic leadership and impression management.We therefore believe it important to reconsider and to amend Gardner and Avolio’s (1998)model of the charismatic relationship in order to better reflect this. Accordingly, Figure 1presents narrative and storytelling as the discursive centrepiece of charismatic leader impres-sion management. This model imagines the charismatic leader as a storyteller (Boje, 1991a,1991b; McClelland, 1961; Neuhauser, 1993), whose performances fashion the charismaticrelationship between leader and followers. In keeping with this view, we argue that thecharismatic leader’s performances can be seen as stories that speak of the self, a vision, ora collective identity. Our model elevates Gardner and Avolio’s (1998) performing tech-nique of ‘promotion’ in order to outline what are proposed as the three leader IM narrative

Figure 1. Dramaturgical model of the charismatic relationship (based on: Burke, 1966; 1989;

Czarniawska, 1998; Gabriel, 2004; Gardner and Avolio, 1998; Goffman, 1959; Jones and Pittman,

1982; and Weick 1995)

Sharma and Grant 7



‘types’: self, vision, and organisational narratives (see Conger, 1989; Conger and Kanungo,1988; Fairhurst and Sarr, 1996; Jones and Pittman, 1982; Shamir et al., 1993). The fourphases of leader IM – framing, scripting, staging and performing – therefore emerge as theprocess by which a narrative or story is constructed and shared. Accordingly, we claim thatnarrative and storytelling is the central activity associated with leader impression manage-ment, where storytelling performances enable leaders to forge relationships with followersthat are independent of tradition and formal authority.

Stage management and scene setting

Gardner and Avolio’s (1998) framing, scripting, staging and performing phases of leaderimpression management provide a useful means by which to conceptualise and study char-ismatic leadership. However, as their model stands, the authors do not separate out whatthey term ‘purely logistical matters’ (the preparation of a performance by the leader andtheir subordinates) from matters of ‘physical appearance’ (the public delivery of the perfor-mance and its viewing to followers). The result is that they pay insufficient attention to theways in which moments beyond those shared ‘on stage’ also inform the charismatic rela-tionship between leaders and followers. As in theatre, leadership performances are punctu-ated by rehearsals, spontaneity and ‘behind-the-scenes’ disruptions, which have the potentialto unsettle the leader’s charismatic identity. This brings into focus the idea of ‘performingregions’; an important yet often overlooked feature of Goffman’s (1959) work,The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Here, Goffman (1959) writes that the performanceroutine is prepared in a ‘back region’ that the audience is not normally granted access to. Hisjustification for this is that the back region houses information not addressed to the audi-ence, as well as secrets that are shared and kept among supporting cast members. Forexample, while an actor may maintain a healthy ‘working consensus’ with their audience(i.e. emphasising agreement, while underplaying opposition), they may well hold opinionsabout audience members that would only ever be expressed ‘out-of-character’, and in theaudience’s absence. Therefore, when a supporting cast member ‘leaks’ information or anaudience member gains information by ‘encroaching’ into this back-stage region, or whenthe actor commits a ‘faux pas’ or ‘unintended gesture’ in the front region, this will ‘compli-cate the problem of putting on a show’ because such disruptions betray the actor’s socialcharacter (Goffman, 1959: 239).

To minimise performance disruptions, Goffman (1959) prescribes three impression-man-agement strategies for performers that enable them to sustain their social characters. First,he suggests that teams cultivate friendships and solidarity – ‘dramaturgical loyalty’ – toensure that performers and supporting cast members do not divulge secrets before, duringor even after a performance because of a deeply felt sense of obligation. Second, he arguesthat thespians must be divorced from emotion and spontaneity during a performance – i.e.practice ‘dramaturgical discipline’ – so as to avoid ‘faux pas’ and ‘unintended gestures’.In the event of ‘disruption’, the actor must engage in facework by underplaying importance,self-abasing, and sincerely apologising for any transgression (Gardner, 1992). Indeed,Goffman goes one step further, advising actors to exercise self-control and sound judgementin their traverses ‘from private places of informality to public places of varying degrees offormality’ (1959: 217). Finally, Goffman refers to ‘dramaturgical circumspection’, a foresightexercised by performers and the supporting cast in which they plan and prepare for contin-gencies and opportunities. To this end, Goffman advises performers to attract sympathetic

8 Leadership 7(1)



supporting cast and audience members that offer little resistance to the performance troupe,as it may minimise the potential for back- and front-region disruptions (1959: 227–8).

Goffman’s literal dramaturgical conception of everyday life has inspired a number ofstudies about leadership as performance. These include Clark and Salaman’s (1998) studyof executive recruitment firms. These authors found that management consultants are notonly required to legitimise their vocation and value to clients, but also to stealthily ‘stagemanage’ interactions between job candidates and the client during the recruitment andselection process. The clandestine nature of this process – an inherently ‘backstage’ activity –ensured that the image of ‘failed’ candidates remained intact.

Transposed to Gardner and Avolio’s (1998) model, the performing regions highlighted byGoffman (1959) are considered to be the ‘environment’ within which stage managementtakes place and the charismatic relationship is formed. We contend that the use of theterm ‘environment’ does not fit with the dramaturgical metaphor underpinning Gardnerand Avolio’s model and thus undermines its purchase; a more appropriate term is needed,and here Kenneth Burke’s (1966) work, A Grammar of Motives, offers a solution.

Burke (1966, 1989) presents a dramatistic pentad through which he seeks to make sense ofsocial events and interactions, as well as their underlying human motivations through fivegrammars – the act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose – which generate further analysisthrough the ‘ratios’ created between them. Burke expresses particular interest in, and empha-sises the importance of, contextual, temporal and spatial features that inform the scene.Citing the desolate surroundings that occasion thoughts of suicide for Horatio inShakespeare’s Hamlet, Burke argues that the scene is generative of the act, hence generatingthe scene–act ratio.

Walker and Monin’s (2001) utilisation of Burke’s pentad to analyse Dick Hubbard’s(CEO of Hubbard Foods) decision to take the employees of his New Zealand-basedcompany to Western Samoa for a weekend company picnic in celebration of its tenth birth-day, underscores the importance of scenic factors to leadership performance. Knowing thatthe company’s workforce comprised a largely Samoan and Polynesian mix, Hubbardappealed to their sensibilities by wearing traditional local attire (a flax skirt), playingcricket, and partaking in a local village ceremony where he was decreed a Matai (leader).Following the event, Hubbard and news of the company picnic also garnered attention fromlocal media and the public (third-party audiences). The case of Hubbard Foods thus high-lighted the importance of both staging and the scene, where the scene was ‘in ratio’ andindeed generative of the act.

In line with Burke’s (1966) work, we suggest that Gardner and Avolio’s (1998) term the‘environment’ needs to be replaced with the term ‘scene’. An emphasis on ‘scene’, inconjunction with the representation of performing regions and the idea of leadership and‘stage management’ would allow for and invite more informative analysis of the nature ofcharismatic leadership. At the same time it still captures the influence of organisationalcontext, intrinsic/extrinsic pressures and crises, and third-party audiences upon the charis-matic relationship as envisaged by Gardner and Avolio.

Earlier we highlighted the salience of narrative and storytelling to Gardner and Avolio’s(1998) model of the charismatic relationship and presented these in Figure 1. The figure alsoreflects the observations we have made concerning the potential contributions of Goffman’s(1959) and Burke’s (1966) work. It draws attention to the stage management of leader andfollower interactions in different ‘performing regions’ and the value of the dramatistic pentadin highlighting those factors that inform the setting of the scene in which a performance

Sharma and Grant 9



takes place. ‘Performing regions’ are represented in terms of: the backstage, the transitionalregion, and the front stage. The segregation between ‘back’ and ‘front’ stages is illustrated bytwo discrete, albeit semi-permeable boxes (denoted by the ‘dashed’ lines), as well as a‘transitional region’ (denoted by the vertical ‘grey’ band). This is intended to help distinguishbetween instances: (i) where a performance is privately prepared by the actor (leader) andsupporting cast (colleagues and/or subordinates) in the backstage, and (ii) where a perfor-mance is publicly delivered and viewed by the audience (followers) on the front stage. In sodoing, these performing regions communicate the hazards of ‘potential disruptions’ upon aleader’s performance, and thus emphasise the importance of stage management to the con-struction and maintenance of a leader’s charismatic identity. In the backstage, these poten-tial disruptions occur in the form of incursions or leaks, while on the front stage, faux pas orunintended gestures performed by the leader may betray the leader’s social character and thecharismatic relationship. In the four phases of the leader IM process that comprise thenarrative performance, the model positions framing and scripting as activities that occurin the backstage, secluded from the audience and third parties. In contrast, staging andperforming are activities that manifest on the front stage where, in addition to the leader’sspoken performance, the aesthetic composition of the stage, physical appearance, costume,props and other physical artefacts, are freely observable to followers and other stakeholdersin the public domain. It is important to note that while these performing regions exist in bothmetaphorical and ontologically real senses, they are visually represented using semi-perme-able boxes because they are informed by the scene (environment). Finally, the model’sdirectional flows illustrate the ongoing nature of the relationship between leaders and fol-lowers suggesting that this relationship is never settled and is continually being(re)negotiated.

Approach and methodology

Drawing on our model, we seek to investigate how an understanding of narrative andstorytelling, as well as stage management can inform dramaturgical studies of charismaticleadership. Being social constructionist in orientation, our approach is informed by severalkey meta-theoretical assumptions about the nature of the social world (Burrell and Morgan,1979). Ontologically, it observes leadership as an expression of social difference between‘leader’ and ‘follower’ identities that is enacted through a process of social construction, andembedded in time and place (Chen, 2008; Fairhurst; 2008; Grint, 2005). Epistemologically,and consonant with social constructionism, knowledge and reality pertaining to leadershipare taken to be negotiated through social interactions between leaders and followers. Thesesocial interactions are where key discourses are constituted (Mumby and Clair, 1997; vanDijk, 1997) that contribute to the attribution and maintenance of what constitutes a char-ismatic leader.

The discourse analytic approach adopted in this study sought to empirically engage withthe research subject (the leader), through a ‘systematic study of texts’ (Grant and Hardy,2003) associated with their narrative and storytelling. These ‘texts’ are multi-modal, encom-passing ‘talk, writing, gesture and perhaps even dress and other visualised kinds of behav-iour’ (Iedema, 2007: 932). We acknowledge that in adopting a discursive methodology we areparty to the research process itself. Our frames of reference and fields of experience will haveinformed aspects of the research design, as well as its conduct and presentation, whichwill have consequently shaped meaning (Fournier and Grey, 2000; Rhodes and

10 Leadership 7(1)



Brown, 2005a, 2005b). Accordingly, our study identifies with Alvesson and Deetz’s (1996)assertion that researchers principally construct and collect data to interpret it, thus renderingour empirical research interpretative in nature.

Our study focuses on a single leader: Steven (‘Steve’) Paul Jobs – co-founder and CEO ofApple Inc. Jobs is widely regarded as a charismatic leader and acclaimed for his contribu-tions to the personal computer, technology and entertainment industries. His career spansmore than three decades, during which time he has worked at Apple Computer from 1976 to1985, NeXT Computer from 1985 to 1996, Pixar Animation Studios from 1986 to 2006, andApple once again, from 1997 to present (Kahney, 2008). Stories about Jobs’ charisma havebeen well documented by colleagues (see Hertzfeld and Capps, 2005; Sculley and Byrne,1988; Wozniak and Smith, 2006), in unauthorised biographies (see Deutschman, 2000;Kahney, 2008; Young, 1988; Young and Simon, 2005), and in the business and technologynews media.

While Jobs rose to prominence for his exceptional presentation skills and work on the‘Apple II’ and ‘Macintosh’ computers in the 1970s and 1980s, stories about his narcissism,temper, epic tantrums and bad behaviour are as legendary in Silicon Valley as are his feats(see Deutschman, 2000; Young and Simon, 2005). The most public of these faux pasoccurred in September, 1985, when Jobs resigned from Apple after a months-long powerstruggle with then CEO, John Sculley. Jobs’ love for the Macintosh had spawned anunhealthy rivalry between employees in the Macintosh and Apple II divisions of thecompany. His resignation letter and details of his tearful departure were splashed acrossthe pages of American magazines and newspapers (Young and Simon, 2005: 128–9). Theseevents prompted Jobs to be more guarded and distant with the media.

Since his return to Apple in 1997, Jobs and his supporting cast members have unrelent-ingly sought to suppress backstage leaks and incursions associated with trade secrets andrumours about the company’s unannounced products. For example, in late 2007,‘ThinkSecret’ – a website dedicated to rumours about forthcoming Apple products – wassuccessfully litigated and subsequently shut down by Apple for publishing details in 2005about its new ‘Mac Mini’ desktop computer (Fried, 2005; Shaw, 2007). While Jobs’ ‘looselips sink ships’ mantra serves to protect commercial interests, it also satisfies a dramaturgicalpurpose. Since the 1980s, Apple has relied on trade shows, conferences and special events tointroduce products to its customers and developers. At these events, Jobs traditionally intro-duces and demonstrates new products and services during his keynote address. As interest inApple’s activities reaches fever pitch prior to these keynote addresses, Jobs and his support-ing cast have often been forced to play ‘cat-and-mouse’ games with bloggers, rumourwebsites and the news media. However, as Apple has grown, acquiring new business partnersand opening new factories in Asia and Europe, Jobs has found it increasingly difficult toprevent leaks about forthcoming products. For this reason, dramaturgical discipline frombackstage supporting cast members is increasingly important to achieving Jobs’ desired levelof performance on the front stage.

In scholarly research, Steve Jobs is frequently cited as an example of the qualities andbehaviours – positive and negative – evinced by transformational and charismatic leaders(see Awamleh and Gardner, 1999; Conger, 1999; Gardner and Avolio, 1998; Harvey, 2001;Khurana, 2002; Maccoby, 2000). Of note is Harvey’s (2001) study, which empirically testedGardner and Avolio’s (1998) model of the charismatic relationship. This study examined atelevision documentary performance by Steve Jobs (prior to his return to Apple in 1997), andin particular, his rhetorical impression-management skills such as exemplification,

Sharma and Grant 11



promotion and facework. Given Jobs’ extensive career, our study elected to focus on the erasince his return to Apple, from 1997 to 2007.

The study applies our narratologically and dramaturgically informed model of the char-ismatic relationship between leaders and followers in order to analyse three public perfor-mances by Jobs from 1997 to 2007. In focusing on three performances our approach iscommensurate with that of, for example, Karreman and Alvesson (2001) and Potter andWetherell (1987), who show that the fine-grained analysis of a small number of texts canprovide a level of insight that the analysis of large numbers might not otherwise achieve. Theparticular performances that we focus on were also chosen because they were publicly avail-able and represent a chronologically ordered sequence of key moments in both Apple’shistory and Jobs’ career that enable us to construct a narrative about Jobs’ leadership.Furthermore, they are typical of the type of public performances that Jobs is principallyrenowned for – keynote speeches at Apple special events, where he makes importantannouncements about developments at Apple and demonstrates new products and servicesbefore followers. With these performances also broadcast online, Jobs’ principal and third-party followership is vast, including Apple enthusiasts, employees, board members, share-holders, business partners, third-party developers and manufacturers, competitors, and thebusiness and technology press. This heterogeneous audience of followers thus consumedifferent and varying impressions of Jobs as a leader, which have the potential to influencematerial decisions about Apple.

Using Apple’s ‘Keynotes’ video podcast, YouTube, and Macintosh-enthusiast web sites,video and audio recordings, as well as transcripts of the three performances were analysed.The study also drew upon a broad range of supplementary texts, including biographicalmaterial, magazine and newspaper articles, and online ‘blog’ postings to contextualiseimportant ‘scene’ and ‘backstage’ events associated with each performance. These supple-mentary texts also provided an impression of the motives, expectations and attitudes ofsupporting cast members and followers about Jobs’ performances.

Data analysis took place over three stages. First, having assembled a catalogue ofperformances by Jobs between 1997 and 2007, each performance was analysed in order toconstruct some broad categories. This involved the identification of significant issues andevents that were apparent in the ‘scene’ and ‘backstage’, as well as any audience (follower)reactions. At the same time, the aesthetic arrangement of the ‘front stage’ was defined,noting items such as stage backdrops, lighting, media, sound, costumes and props.Second, the results of this initial analysis were explored further and either discarded orrefined and collapsed into more precise categories (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Miles andHuberman, 1994; Yin, 1989). Third, a narrative analysis of each performance wasconducted. This required systematic ‘interrogation’ of these categories (Yin, 1989), withparticular thought given to how they were associated with the narrative ‘type’, ‘structure’,and ‘motive’, as well as the ‘stage management’ of each text.

Results

Macworld Expo, 1997: The Microsoft deal

In December, 1996, Apple’s then CEO, Gil Amelio, agreed to buy Steve Jobs’ companyNeXT Computer. The deal gave Apple access to NeXT’s 300 employees, its advancedNeXTSTEP operating system and most importantly, Jobs himself (Young and Simon,2005: 226). However, Apple’s poor sales and financial troubles during the 1990s left Jobs

12 Leadership 7(1)



somewhat unsure about his decision to return. In the months following, Jobs led a backstagerevolt against Amelio – the man who hired him as a ‘special advisor’ – by convincing theboard that only he could rescue Apple (Young and Simon, 2005: 232). Amelio was asked tostand down by the board, and by July, 1997, Jobs had installed himself as Apple’s untitledbut de facto leader.

Jobs quickly shifted his attention to August Macworld Expo conference in Boston. As hisfirst order of business, he arranged to meet the producers of the event, and fired the personresponsible for Apple’s major conference, describing it as ‘ . . . the worst thing I’ve seen in mylife!’ (Deutschman, 2000: 246). Unbeknown to event organisers and the front-stage audiencewere the extent of Apple’s financial problems. Backstage dealings to save Apple hadexhausted Jobs, and unless he acted with haste, the company would be insolvent within90 days. With event organisers and supporting cast members all in one room, Jobs revealedthat he would be announcing a US$150 million investment by Microsoft in Apple, as well astheir promise to continue writing Macintosh software for the next five years (Cruikshank,2006: 137). Jobs shared his big news in the strictest confidence, promising to those present,‘If it does [leave this room], I’ll fire you. So look around and see if you can trust the otherpeople. If not, leave now’ (Deutschman, 2000: 246). Jobs’ announcement of the Microsoftdeal features several aesthetic arrangements on the front stage. First, the minimalist Bostonstage only features a carefully camouflaged black lectern at ‘stage right’. The backdropincludes a big screen that is flanked by two illuminated vertical columns bearing theApple logo. The flaxen glow of the stage lights at the forefront of the stage serve to focusthe audience’s attention upon Jobs and his every movement. Second, Jobs’ costume for theperformance comprises a white mock-turtleneck shirt (with sleeves rolled up), a blackcardigan (half-buttoned), and grey business trousers. Jobs’ distinctive ensemble – withrolled up shirt sleeves and half-buttoned cardigan – lend his performance a casual andintimate feel, much akin to a ‘town hall’-style meeting.

In announcing the Microsoft deal, Jobs has to give a performance that is fraught withdifficulty. It is a performance that intertwines narrative types, and where faux pas andunintended gestures also prompt him to depart from the ‘script’, and thus risk his charis-matic image. Jobs’ performance features three sub-narratives, including an explanation ofthe partnership; a guest appearance by Microsoft CEO, Bill Gates; and an impromptucounter-narrative.

Jobs commences by acknowledging the unsteadiness of the Apple–Microsoft relationship(i.e. an original state of affairs), and proceeds to construct a ‘vision’ narrative which depictsApple’s relationship with Microsoft as vital to the company’s survival (i.e. a consequent stateof affairs). Jobs details several new agreements (i.e. catalyst actions), which include settle-ment over a number of patent disputes, ‘Microsoft Office’ software development forMacintosh, ‘Internet Explorer’ as the Macintosh’s new default web browser, and ‘Java’platform collaboration. Less than enthused about partnering with their sworn rival, theMacworld audience greets each agreement with a medley of loud ‘boos’ and tepid applause.However, Jobs is yet to reveal one more thing:

And lastly, Microsoft is making an investment in Apple. Microsoft is buying $150 million dollarsworth of Apple stock at market price [audience ‘boos’]. It is non-voting shares [audience

applauds loudly] . . . and they’ve agreed not to sell them for at least three years.

The audience’s exuberant and unanticipated responses generate a palpable frictionbetween actor and audience. Unaccustomed to audience interruptions, Jobs purses his lips

Sharma and Grant 13



during the audience’s ‘boos’, and frowns upon their applause for Microsoft’s non-votingshares. Observing the audience’s resistance to his ‘vision’ narrative, Jobs departs from hisscript, restating his excitement about partnering with Microsoft.

In the second sub-narrative, Jobs toys with the audience’s expectations, telling them hehas a ‘special guest’ via satellite link. Tension builds, as a technical glitch delays broadcast ofthe satellite feed on the big screen for several seconds. Finally, Bill Gates – Microsoft’schairman and CEO – emerges with a towering presence, eliciting a deafening chorus of‘boos’, ‘hoots’ and jeers from the audience. Forced to take pause, Gates grimaces,before launching into a prepared monologue expressing delight about the renewedApple–Microsoft relationship.

While the audience observes a respectful silence, the symbolism and imagery of themoment is certainly not lost on them. Gates, on the big screen from thousands of milesaway, looms large, overshadowing the diminutive Jobs, who is standing on stage, directlybelow. The ‘moment’ is a pastiche of Apple’s history-making ‘1984’ Super Bowl commercial,in which a female heroine hurls a sledgehammer at ‘Big Brother’ (represented by a broodingfigure also on a ‘big screen’). Except, in this case, Jobs stands before his ‘Big Brother’unarmed and forlorn, seemingly emasculated. As the satellite link closes, Jobs offers Gatesvote of thanks and begins an impromptu, third sub-narrative:

. . . if we want to move forward and see Apple healthy and prospering again, we have to let go ofa few things. We have to let go of this notion that, for Apple to ‘win’, Microsoft has to ‘lose’.

Okay? [audience applauds] We have to embrace the notion that, for Apple to ‘win’, Apple has todo a really good job. If others are going to help us, that’s great – because we need all the help wecan get. If we screw up and we don’t do a good job, it’s not somebody else’s fault. It’s our

fault . . .

Perturbed by his followers’ reception of Gates, Jobs’ impromptu performance is deliveredwith several unintended gestures: pauses, pensively pacing back and forth on stage, andsevering eye contact with the audience. Jobs invokes collective voice – using ‘we’ and ‘us’pronouns – to appeal to followers, framing the Apple–Microsoft rivalry as a vestige of the1980s (i.e. an original state of affairs). Instead, he is encouraging followers to relinquishtheir prejudices (i.e. a catalyst idea) and take responsibility for the company’s future,which he describes in his vision as ‘a healthy and prospering Apple’ (i.e. a changed stateof affairs):

The era of setting this up as a competition between Apple and Microsoft is over as far as I’mconcerned.

Moralised and enlightened by Jobs’ unscripted sermon, the audience appreciates theirhaste to judge the Microsoft deal unfavourably. They applaud enthusiastically, in approvalof Steve Jobs’ ‘vision’ narrative.

Worldwide Developers’ Conference (WWDC), 2002: The Mac OS 9 eulogy

One of the problems Steve Jobs inherited upon his return to Apple was a 15-year-old oper-ating system (OS) architecture (Cruickshank, 2006). During the 1990s, the Macintosh’sthird-party software developers grew annoyed and tired of having to migrate their applica-tions from one needless Apple OS upgrade to the next, so they had simply stopped doing so.

14 Leadership 7(1)



To make matters worse, backstage leaks from Apple’s own programmers about the MacOS’s problems and shortcomings were undermining both Jobs and the company’s image(Kahney, 2008).

Jobs feared that software developers would begin to abandon the Mac. In 2000, heannounced and previewed a ‘next generation’, completely overhauled, and more stable OSentitled ‘Mac OS X’. Backstage, he became ‘like Khruschev, banging his shoe on the table’(Kahney, 2008: 56), forbidding all supporting cast members from criticising the new MacOS. Jobs even seized control, using Apple’s public relations arm to declare: ‘With Mac OSX taking centre stage, it’s a very exciting time to be a Mac developer’ (Apple, 2002).Having given developers nearly two years to migrate to OS X, Jobs decided that it wastime for Apple to officially cease developer support and put its predecessor, ‘Mac OS 9’, torest. On May 6, 2002, to convey the gravity of his announcement, Steve Jobs performed amock funeral for Mac OS 9 at Apple’s Worldwide Developers’ Conference in San Jose,California.

Jobs’ mock funeral for Mac OS 9 is elaborately staged, featuring an assortment ofaesthetic arrangements that lend credence to the performance. First, the stage is fullyilluminated by bright white stage lights that are positioned directly above the stage,giving the set a ‘heavenly’ feel. The stage backdrop features a big screen – approximatelythree storeys high – that is flanked by royal blue velvet curtains. Projected onto the bigscreen is the image of a beautiful church interior, with stained-glass windows and sunlightshining through. Well-concealed smoke machines also blanket the stage floor with a layerof thick white smoke. Second, the performance contains two main props. As Jobs com-mences his performance, a black casket raises from a trap door in the stage floor, insidewhich rests an oversized version of Mac OS 9’s product packaging. Additionally, a stirringrendition of Bach’s ‘Toccata and Fugue’ is played on the organ, which fades to silence asJobs begins speaking. Jobs’ attire for the occasion is a black mock-turtleneck shirt, a pairof blue faded Levi’s jeans, and sneakers. Renowned for his ‘renegade’ CEO image, Jobs’costume is meaningfully out-of-place, denoting the tongue-in-cheek spirit of theperformance.

As Bach’s ‘Toccata and Fugue’ subsides, Jobs emerges from ‘stage right’ ontothe smoke-blanketed stage. Wearing a sombre expression, Jobs walks to the closedcasket and lifts its lid to prop up the oversized version of Mac OS 9’s product packag-ing for all the audience to see. Holding a printed copy of his eulogy, Jobs nears theaudience at ‘stage down-right-centre’ and stands to attention before commencing histribute:

Mac OS 9 was a friend to us all. He worked tirelessly on our behalf, always hosting our appli-cations; never refusing a command; always at our beck and call. Except occasionally, when he’d

forgotten who he was and needed to be restarted.

Jobs utilises personification with outstanding rhetorical effect, eliciting nostalgia aboutOS 9 in the developer-packed audience. For example, the phrase ‘always at our beck andcall’ invokes thoughts of a diligent and faithful servant. Jobs also light-heartedly acknowl-edges OS 9’s flaws: ‘Except occasionally, when he’d forgotten who he was . . . ’ is, equally, anallegory for malaise and decrepitude. Firmly in character, Jobs lends credence to his stagepersona by evincing several consonant, intended gestures: pursed lips, reading from a hardcopy of the eulogy, and offering consoling gazes across the audience at regular intervals.Cognisant of the elaborate and unusual nature of his performance, Jobs also exercises pause

Sharma and Grant 15



at the close of each sentence to gauge audience feedback, which in this case is warm laughter.Ensuing, Jobs defines Mac OS 9’s legacy:

He was a mentor to many younger technologies, including Sherlock, Keychain, and AutoUpdating. He helped to make them what they are today. He was a humble guy too . . .Mac

OS 9 is survived by his next generation, Mac OS X, and thousands of applications – most ofthem legitimate.

Jobs sustains the motif, repeatedly invoking the ‘he’ pronoun in reference to Mac OS 9.He also ‘sense-makes’ by assembling a narrative about OS 9’s fulfilling life to inform a‘vision’ about the future of software development on the Mac – OS X. Jobs’ plot deviceestablishes a chain of causality, casting OS 9 as an ‘original state of affairs’ and OS X asprogeny, or a ‘consequent state of affairs’. For Jobs, the ‘many younger technologies’, suchas Sherlock (a search utility) and Keychain (a password utility), are catalysts in the story,driving OS X’s development. Seeking to positively frame Mac OS X, Jobs’ final sentencerefers to the ‘thousands of applications’ migrated from OS 9 to OS X, lauding developerefforts with an acerbic reference to conception: ‘most of them legitimate’. As he concludes hiseulogy, Jobs returns to ‘centre stage’ to close Mac OS 9’s casket, and places a single, long-stemmed rose upon it. Remaining solemn, ‘in character’, Jobs offers some final words:

Please join me in a moment of silence as we remember our old friend, Mac OS 9.

The audience humours Jobs, and joins him in silence. It is a sanguine moment. Thehumour and symbolism of Jobs’ performance had exorcised years of developer frustrationand anger. The eulogy is a rhapsodic counter-narrative that, for a brief moment, sets asideApple’s backstage and OS troubles to laud Mac OS 9’s legacy, and offer a ‘vision’ for thefuture. Jobs’ ‘self ’ and Apple’s ‘organisational’ narratives are captured well in the sub-text ofthe performance. Jobs’ wit and originality is as much an expression of Apple’s identity as it ishis own: a centred, good-humoured, and achievement-oriented organisation that celebrateslearning and growth.

Macworld Expo, 2007: The iPhone introduction

From early 2006 through to Macworld Expo 2007, rumours about a new device called‘iPhone’ – ostensibly an ‘iPod’ digital music player with telephony and countless othercapabilities – grew more intense among Apple bloggers, social networking communities,and market analysts (see Dolan, 2006; Kim, 2006; Lam, 2006; MacDailyNews, 2006; Roseand Albrecht, 2006). Backstage leaks were fuelling speculations about technical specifica-tions; service carriers; sales estimates; and product launch dates (Dolan, 2006). The effects ofthese backstage leaks were mixed. On the one hand, they garnered unprecedented levels ofattention for Apple, while on the other, they established lofty expectations for Steve Jobs’forthcoming Macworld keynote address. On January 9, 2007, he addressed an expectantaudience at the Macworld Expo conference, held at the Moscone Centre in San Francisco,California.

The staging of Jobs’ iPhone keynote address comprises various aesthetic arrangements onthe front stage. First, Jobs’ Moscone stage is characteristically minimalist, featuring only ablack lectern at ‘stage right’. Shrouded in darkness, the lectern houses Jobs’ props andaccessories: an iPhone demonstration unit, a booklet with stage directions for his iPhonedemonstration, and a remote control to direct his slide presentation. The backdrop features

16 Leadership 7(1)



a big screen, upon which Jobs’ media and slide presentation are broadcasted, that is boundeither side by navy-blue stage curtains. Stage lights also illuminate the entire front stage, andlighting effects shift the audience’s attention from Jobs to screen, and back, when desired.Jobs’ costume for the event is a familiar ensemble: a black mock-turtleneck shirt with sleevesrolled up, a pair of faded-blue Levi’s jeans, and a pair of New Balance sneakers. Tellingly,Jobs’ ‘five o’clock shadow’ and grey hair with pronounced pattern baldness speak to his age.

Attune with the sense of occasion, Jobs commences his monologue with a proclamation:‘We’re going to make history together today’. He starts by titillating the audience withquarterly performance data on iPod and iTunes media sales; additions to the iTunesMovie Store; and finally, a demonstration of a previously announced but unreleasedmedia hub device called ‘Apple TV’. Preoccupied by Jobs’ cryptic proclamation, the audi-ence offers warm albeit somewhat hollow applause. Finally, Jobs takes pause and the bigscreen darkens, from which a silhouette of the Apple logo emerges, foreshadowing:

Every once in a while, a revolutionary product comes along that changes everything. And Applehas been – well, first of all, one’s very fortunate if you get to work on just one of these in yourcareer. Apple’s been very fortunate. It’s been able to introduce a few of these into the world.

In 1984, Apple introduced the Macintosh. It’s didn’t just change Apple, it changed the wholecomputer industry. In 2001, we introduced the first iPod, and it didn’t just change the way we alllisten to music, it changed the entire music industry. Well today, we’re introducing three revo-lutionary products of this class.

Jobs ‘sense-makes’ by identifying two significant moments and meaningfully sequencingthem to tell a story about Apple. He makes ‘innovation’ the core plot device of Apple’s‘organisational’ narrative: it is a company that has ‘changed’ the world. Building on thenarrative, he also invokes collective-identity appeals, through the use of ‘we’ pronouns, topraise Apple’s creative traditions, whilst also utilising exemplification to express a sense ofhumility and self-awareness: ‘Apple’s been very fortunate’. Maintaining his ruse, Jobsnonchalantly states that his ‘three revolutionary products’ are: a touch-screen iPod, aphone, and an Internet communications device:

An iPod, a phone, and an Internet communicator [a triangular prism, with avatars to representeach device on each prism face correspondingly spins on the big screen]. An iPod, a phone . . .

– are you getting it? These are not three separate devices, this is one device, and we are calling it

iPhone. Today, Apple is going to reinvent the phone, and here it is [audience erupts with laughteras a picture of an iPod with a rotary dial superimposed on the ‘click-wheel’ is projected onto thebig screen]. No, actually here it is [removes phone from jeans pocket], but we’re going to leave itthere for now [audience gasps, offers subdued applause].

Jobs humours the audience’s months-long sense of anticipation with a well-timed gag.Without even seeing iPhone, the audience is already enchanted with its concept. First, Jobsshares a ‘vision’ narrative to tell the story of iPhone’s product design. Using the big screen,he laments the clumsy and perfunctory design of existing ‘smart phone’ products, showcas-ing their small plastic keyboards that are ‘there whether or not you need them to be there’.In so doing, Jobs frames the issue as a user interface problem:

Well, every application wants a slightly different user interface, a slightly optimised set of but-tons just for it. And what happens when you think of a great idea six months from now? You

can’t run around and add a button to these things . . .What we’re going to do is get rid of all

Sharma and Grant 17



these buttons and just make a giant screen. Now, how are we going to communicate with this?Oh, a stylus! Who wants a stylus?! You have to get ‘em and put ‘em away, and you lose‘em . . .We’re going to use the best pointing device in the world: we’re going to use our fingers.

Jobs’ use of collective pronoun and present tense engages the audience, live and interac-tively, as if they themselves were involved in the iPhone’s design. Jobs uses Aristotelian‘logos’, logically explaining the sequence of design decisions for the iPhone. The ‘vision’narrative for iPhone is thus rudimentary: ‘smart phone’ keyboards consume space anddiminish functionality (i.e. an original state of affairs); phone applications require context-specific inputs (i.e. a catalyst idea); a ‘giant’ touch screen maximises input capability and userexperience (i.e. a consequent state of affairs). Jobs’ use of the big screen is particularlypuissant during this sequence, revealing the limitations of existing ‘smart phones’, andcontrasting them with the iPhone’s minimalist and elegant design.

Using a booklet containing ‘stage directions’ to guide him, Jobs provides a demonstrationof iPhone. A video cable connected to the device and a camera situated directly above thelectern broadcast Jobs’ demonstrations on the big screen. Jobs delights the audience for thenext hour, showcasing all of iPhone’s features, which cushions the proceeding ‘bad news’about its price and delayed availability. Finally, Jobs revisits the ‘organisational’ narrativeconstructed at the beginning of his performance. With the Mac, iPod, Apple TV and nowiPhone, the company had outgrown its registered name, Apple Computer:

So we’re announcing today we’re dropping the ‘Computer’ from our name, and from this dayforward, we’re going to be known as Apple Inc., to reflect the product mix that we have today.

Seemingly inconsequential, Jobs’ announcement garners a standing ovation from Appleemployees in the front rows of the audience, who are joined by the wider audience.The change to Apple Inc., in a small but meaningful way, paid homage to the changingway in which Jobs and Apple’s employees saw themselves, and their shared designs forthe future.

Discussion

Our analysis of Steve Jobs’ three performance-related texts reveals three important insightsinto the construction of Jobs as charismatic leader. First, Jobs utilises narrative and story-telling as powerful persuasive devices in each of the three performances. Fundamentally,Jobs’ performances are meaningfully sequenced, bound by a plot device, and comprise an‘original state of affairs’; a catalyst; and a ‘consequent state of affairs’, which constitute anarrative (Boje, 1994; Czarniawska, 1998; Gabriel, 2000, 2004; Weick, 1995). In the‘Microsoft deal’ and ‘iPhone introduction’, Jobs commences by defining the ‘original stateof affairs’, explaining the company’s current situation and its marketplace competitors,respectively. Jobs utilises the opportunity for change effectively, presenting the ‘catalyst’idea or action as a departure from an ‘old way’ of doing things: a paradigm shift. Forexample, Jobs’ sardonically illustrates the clumsy interface design and user experience ofexisting ‘smart phones’ to frame the iPhone’s touch screen as revolutionary. Jobs’ ‘scripts’are meaningfully sequenced, bound by a plot device, inspiring followers toward a valuedendpoint. Jobs’ moment of indulgence in the ‘iPhone introduction’, during which heannounces a change to Apple’s legal name, is purposefully scripted at the conclusion of

18 Leadership 7(1)



the performance, as it is a point at which the audience realises that Apple has evolved intomuch more than a computer company. In contrast, the Microsoft deal features an extraor-dinary performance of counter-narrative, in which Jobs departs from the script in responseto the audience’s hostility, to proclaim a modest ‘vision’ narrative that Apple would surviveits financial troubles and be ‘healthy and prospering’ once again.

The persuasive effect of the three performances is further in evidence where they corrob-orate and demonstrate the performance of ‘vision’ and ‘organisational’ narrative types.Using casting, dialogue and direction, Jobs furnishes the ‘vision’ narrative with excellentrhetorical effect. The ‘Mac OS 9 eulogy’, for example, is a confounding mix of storytelling,humour and choreography in which Jobs is juxtaposed against an elaborate backdrop,lighting, music and props that comprise the set. Jobs utilises personification and the motifof death with superb rhetorical effect to rhapsodise about Mac OS 9’s legacy. Similarly, Jobs’‘iPhone introduction’ is pre-ambled by a reflection statement about Apple’s ‘organisational’narrative: its pioneering of the personal computer industry through the 1980s and 1990s, andcontinued innovation in the music and entertainment industries. It is also important to notethat the ‘self’ narrative type is conspicuously absent in the three performance vignettesfeatured in this article. While Harvey’s (2001) dramaturgical analysis of Jobs’ televisiondocumentary performance (see Cringely, 1996) reveals key discursive moments in whichJobs – reflecting on his upbringing and passion for computing – performs such ‘self ’narratives, the texts analysed in this study were scripted performances in which there areno such moments. Rather, the persuasiveness of these performances emanates from theirbeing informed by the traditions and rituals of Apple-oriented events such as MacworldExpo and WWDC. Macworld Expo and WWDC are week-long consumer and developer-oriented trade shows, at which every year Jobs delivers a keynote address to unofficiallydeclare both events open. Synonymous with the announcement of new or improved productsand services, follower and third-party audience expectations for Jobs’ keynotes appreciateeach year. Such is the effect of these performances, that Jobs’ absences from MacworldExpo in 2004 and 2009, due to ill health, invited concern from followers and wild speculationfrom market analysts about Apple’s future and share price (Buchanan, 2008;MacDailyNews, 2008). In many ways, Jobs’ fiercely loyal audience of followers conformto Goffman’s (1959) notions of dramaturgical loyalty and circumspection. While the sym-pathetic audience exercises ‘tactful inattention’, and accommodates Jobs’ faux pas andunintended gestures, their expectations of him are such that they are not however immuneto feelings of betrayal. ‘The Microsoft deal’ is a striking vignette in which the audiencemomentarily senses a betrayal of the charismatic relationship by Jobs for partneringwith Bill Gates and Microsoft, until Jobs somewhat redeems the situation with a counter-narrative performance.

A second key insight revealed by our analysis is that the effectiveness of the threeperformance vignettes in constructing Jobs’ charismatic relationship with followers is relianton the stage management of performing regions. Jobs’ legendary penchant for dramaturgicalloyalty and discipline is evident in the vignettes, ranging from his ultimatum to Macworldorganisers in 1997 that they were not to discuss the new Apple–Microsoft partnership, to hisunofficial ‘gag’ of supporting cast members during the final days of Mac OS 9. As the soleambassador for the Apple monolith, the vignettes interestingly reveal Jobs to be as much abearer of ‘bad’ news as he is ‘good’. The Microsoft deal and the Mac OS 9 eulogy are bothsituations diffused by Jobs using performance narratives, while the monologic communica-tion medium (i.e. keynote address) provides little opportunity for audience resistance.

Sharma and Grant 19



In many ways, the exercise of dramaturgical loyalty, discipline and circumspection aide Jobsin the delivery of ‘bad’ news, as his exemplary and charismatic social character makes itsacceptance more palatable for follower and third-party audiences.

In recent years, backstage leaks and incursions have emerged as an ongoing concern forJobs and Apple, as, ironically, followers’ appetites for the latest news about products haveencouraged analysts, journalists and Macintosh enthusiasts to encroach the backstage andmake unsolicited contact with supporting cast members, and vice versa. Jobs’ 2007 intro-duction of the iPhone evidences this phenomenon, where indeed months-long rumourmongering in 2006 prompted reporters to suggest that Jobs’ influence at Apple was dimin-ishing. Surprisingly, Jobs’ charismatic relationship with followers appears to be imperviousto rumour and gossip, with the Macworld audience ebullient with anticipation. In fact, Jobsdoes well to enhance his charismatic image through storytelling, foreshadowing, and humourto play with the audience’s sense of expectation.

The aesthetic composition of the front stage is of great importance to Steve Jobs’self-presentation. The typical set design for each of Jobs’ performances comprises carefullyarranged backdrops, screens and slide presentations, strategic positioning of the lectern andconsidered use of lighting, props and other effects. Jobs’ delivery of the Mac OS 9 eulogy is aperformance in which the symbolism of the church-interior backdrop, the open casket, theoversize product box, fog, lighting and music collude to communicate as much meaning ashis spoken words. Moreover, Jobs’ costume is an expression of his ‘renegade’ CEO and non-conformist persona that holds disdain for corporate uniform. Jobs attire since the Mac OS 9eulogy in 2002 has largely remained the same: round rimless spectacles, black mock-turtleneck shirt, blue jeans, and sports sneakers.

Fusing the three performance vignettes together provides a third important insight intoSteve Jobs. This concerns Jobs as narrative. Whereas Jobs’ partiality for the stage wasrenowned in the 1980s, culminating in his 1984 introduction of the Macintosh computer,his ‘grand narrative’ in the post-1997 era is quite interesting. As a storyteller, Jobs has honedhis keynote addresses down to a fine performing art. He appeals to the sensibilities offollowers, yet shies away from the fanfare that his rituals generate. Now bespectacled,greyed, bearded and balding, Jobs graces the stage cognisant of his dramaturgical dutiesas an actor. Perhaps chastened by his acrimonious exit from Apple in the 1980s, Jobs’impromptu departure from the ‘script’ at Macworld 1997 revealed a more enlightenedJobs – born from both desperation and experience – who willingly risked his charismaticidentity to moralise followers for their hostile reception to the ‘Microsoft deal’. Rather thanlamenting a once great empire, Jobs’ mantra that Apple needed to ‘innovate its way out oftrouble’ inspired the company’s renaissance. Accordingly, the Mac OS 9 eulogy in 2002 wasa strong performance of allegory that renewed relations between long-suffering third-partysoftware developers and Apple. The performance incorporated highly effective choreogra-phy, storytelling and humour and recaptured some of Jobs’ bravado from the 1980s. Afteran encounter with pancreatic cancer (Stanford News Service, 2005), and questions about hisleadership, Steve Jobs re-emerged at Macworld 2007 to introduce the iPhone. The ‘realitydistortion field’ was in full effect, with Jobs humorously heightening followers’ sense ofanticipation, before enthusiastically guiding followers through interface-design issues.Arguably the finest performance of his career, Jobs departed the Macworld stage, somewhatfittingly, with a story: Apple had evolved into much more than a computer company. ThusSteve Jobs’ charismatic leadership ‘grand narrative’, since his return to Apple in 1996, isitself an absorbing, perhaps heroic story of learning, growth and redemption.

20 Leadership 7(1)



Conclusion

Overall, our study can be seen to have demonstrated and extended the utility of the drama-turgical metaphor to studies of charismatic leadership. Specifically, this has been achievedthrough our analysis and revision of Gardner and Avolio’s (1998) dramaturgical model ofthe charismatic relationship. The revised model, and its subsequent application to the case ofApple’s Steve Jobs, has enabled us to highlight the role and significance of two key andinterrelated factors regarding the constitution of leader charisma.

First, we have shown that leader impression management and the generation of charismais intrinsically linked to narrative and storytelling. Specifically, we have highlighted the waysin which charismatic leaders, through narration and storytelling, make sense of, and are ableto appeal to, the deeper meanings their audience (followers) attach to the people, places,objects, and events that make up their everyday lives. This in turn moves audiences to notonly respond and relate to the images that such leaders create of themselves, but also to theimages of the organisation that they create. Our utilisation of narrative analysis in order toreveal this, underscores the value of leadership scholars adopting this approach. Indeed, webelieve narrative analysis offers rich potential to further extend the utility of the revisedversion of Gardner and Avolio’s (1998) model that we have presented. For instance, themodel acknowledges the significance of differing scenes and audiences on the charismaticrelationship. Narrative analytic studies could, for example, be used to reveal the extent towhich charismatic leaders draw on different narrative and storytelling rhythms and patterns(e.g. an original state of affairs; a set of catalyst actions or ideas; and a consequent state ofaffairs) according to the environment in which they find themselves in, and the audience thatthey must appeal to. Such studies could then go on to explore the implications of thisbehaviour for leader charismatic identity.

Second, our study has shown that the charismatic leader’s practice of narrative andstorytelling is effected through ‘stage management’: a segregation between back and front‘performing regions’ that serves to minimise potential incursions, leaks, disruptions and fauxpas that may undermine the leader’s narrative and storytelling performances. This stage-managed segregation plays a critical role in constructing the leader’s charismatic identityand, we believe, merits further investigation. Further studies could reveal additional ways inwhich charismatic leaders seek to stage manage segregation beyond those highlighted in ourstudy, and show how and why such attempts sometimes fail. In doing so, they might, forexample, examine the ways in which new media, technology and the ‘news cycle’ inform thestage management practices that are used by these leaders.

We acknowledge that the generalisability of our findings might be questioned in tworespects. First, our study is of only one leader – Steve Jobs. Second, Jobs is in himself auniquely talented and celebrated CEO. Despite these limitations, we note that Jobs is oftencited as an example of transformational and, more specifically, charismatic leadership(Awamleh and Gardner, 1999; Conger, 1999; Gardner and Avolio, 1998; Harvey, 2001;Khurana, 2002; Maccoby, 2000). Accordingly, in applying our model to Jobs we canobserve him as an important illustration of what other leaders may do in order toeffect a charismatic relationship and we can draw some important lessons from this.Further, his influence as a leadership role model, as evidenced by the proliferation ofprescriptive books on how to emulate his leadership style (including his presentationskills), suggests that he merits such attention (see for example, Cruickshank, 2006;Gallo, 2009; Kahney, 2008).

Sharma and Grant 21



Flowing from our findings is a final important point. Our study of Steve Jobs empiricallydemonstrates the directional flows of the dramaturgical model of the charismatic relation-ship. In doing so, it highlights how, through effective stage management, Jobs practicesnarrative and storytelling to define himself and his world for his followers and that hedoes this on an ongoing basis. To that end, the charismatic relationship between leadersand followers should never be viewed as static, rather it is under perpetual (re)negotiationboth ‘behind the scenes’ and on the front stage.

References

Allan J, Gerard F and Barbara H (2002) The Power of Tale – Using Narrative for Organisational

Success. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.Alvesson M and Deetz S (1996) Critical theory and postmodern approaches to organizational studies.

In: Clegg S, Hardy C and Nord W (eds) Handbook of Organizational Studies. London, UK: SAGE

Publications, 191–217.Apple (2002) Steve Jobs to kick off Apple’s Worldwide Developers Conference 2002 [press release],

Apple.com, 15 April, accessed 1 August 2008. Available at: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/

apr/15wwdc.html.Armstrong DA (1992) Managing by Storying Around: A New Method of Leadership. New York, NY:

Doubleday.Awamleh R and Gardner WL (1999) Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: The effects of

vision content, delivery, and organizational performance. Leadership Quarterly 10(3): 345–373.Bass BM (1988) Evolving perspectives on charismatic leadership. In: Conger JA and Kanungo RN

(eds) Charismatic Leadership: The Elusive Factor in Organizational Effectiveness. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass, 40–77.Boje DM (1991a) Organizations as storytelling networks: A study of story performance in an office-

supply firm. Administrative Science Quarterly 36(1): 106–126.

Boje DM (1991b) Consulting and change in the storytelling organization. Journal of OrganizationalChange Management 4(3): 7–17.

Boje DM (1994) Organizational storytelling: Struggles of pre-modern, modern and postmodern orga-nizational learning discourses. Management Learning 25: 433–461.

Bruner J (1990) Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Bryman A (1992) Charisma and Leadership in Organizations. London, UK: SAGE Publications.Bryman A (1993) Charismatic leadership in business organizations: Some neglected issues. Leadership

Quarterly 4: 289–304.Buchanan M (2008) Steve Jobs skipping final Macworld Apple keynote [online article], Gizmodo, 16

December, accessed 29 December 2008. Available at: http://gizmodo.com/5111773/steve-jobs-skip-

ping-final-macworld-apple-keynotehttp://gizmodo.com/5111773/steve-jobs-skipping-final-mac-world-apple-keynote.

Burke K (1966) Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature and Method. Berkeley, CA:

The University of California Press.Burke K (1989) On Symbols and Society: Edited with an Introduction by Joseph R. Gusfield. Chicago,

IL: University of Chicago Press.Burns JM (1978) Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Burrell G and Morgan G (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. London, UK:Heinemann.

Chen L (2008) Leaders or leadership: Alternative approaches to leadership studies. Management

Communication Quarterly 21(4): 547–555.Clark T and Salaman G (1998) Creating the ‘right’ impression: Towards a dramaturgy of management

consultancy. The Service Industries Journal 18(1): 18–38.

22 Leadership 7(1)



Conger JA (1989) The Charismatic Leader: Behind the Mystique of Exceptional Leadership.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Conger JA (1999) Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider’s perspec-

tive on these developing streams of research. The Leadership Quarterly 10(2): 145–179.Conger JA and Kanungo RN (1987) Toward a behavioural theory of charismatic leadership in orga-

nizational settings. Academy of Management Review 12(4): 637–647.

Conger JA and Kanungo RN (eds) (1988) Charismatic Leadership: The Elusive Factor inOrganizational Effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Conger JA and Kanungo RN (1998) Charismatic Leadership in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:

SAGE Publications.Cringely RX (1996) Triumph of the Nerds [video recording transcripts], Ambrose Video Publishing.

Available at: http://www.pbs.org/nerds/transcript.html.Cruickshank JL (2006) The Apple Way: 12 Management Lessons from the World’s Most Innovative

Company. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Culler J (1981) The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature Deconstruction. London, UK: Routledge.Czarniawska B (1998) A Narrative Approach to Organization Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

Publications.Czarniawska B (1999) Writing Management: Organization Theory as a Literary Genre. Oxford, UK:

Oxford University Press.

Denning S (2005) The Leader’s Guide to Storytelling: Mastering the Art and Discipline of BusinessNarrative. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Deutschman A (2000) The Second Coming of Steve Jobs. New York, NY: Broadway Books.

Dolan B (2006) Timeline of Apple ‘iPhone’ Rumors [1999–Present] [online article]. Fierce Wireless, 18December, accessed 10 March 2008. Available at: http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/timeline-apple-iphone-rumors-1999-present.

Eisenhardt KM (1991) Better stories and better constructs: The case for rigor and comparative logic.

Academy of Management Review 16: 620–627.Fairhurst GT (2008) Discursive leadership: A communication alternative to leadership psychology.

Management Communication Quarterly 21(4): 510–521.

Fairhurst GT and Sarr RA (1996) The Art of Framing: Managing the Language of Leadership. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fournier V and Grey C (2000) At the critical moment: Conditions and prospects for critical manage-

ment studies. Human Relations 53(1): 7–32.Fried I (2005) Apple suit Foreshadows Coming Products [online article], CNET News, 5 January,

accessed 12 July 2008. Available at: http://news.cnet.com/Apple-suit-foreshadows-coming-pro-

ducts/2100-1047_3-5513582.html.Gabriel Y (1997) Meeting God: When organizational members come face to face with the supreme

leader. Human Relations 50(4): 315–342.Gabriel Y (2000) Storytelling in Organizations: Facts, Fictions, and Fantasies. Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press.Gabriel Y (2004) Narratives, stories and texts. In: Grant D, Hardy C, Oswick C and Putnam L (eds)

The Sage Handbook of Organizational Discourse. London, UK: SAGE Publications, 61–78.

Gallo C (2009) The Presentation Secrets of Steve Jobs: How to Be Insanely Great in Front of AnyAudience. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Gardner WL (1992) Lessons in organizational dramaturgy: The art of impression management.

Organization Dynamics 21(1): 33–46.Gardner WL and Avolio BJ (1998) The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. The

Academy of Management Review 23(1): 32–58.Garvin DA and Roberto MA (2005) Change through persuasion. Harvard Business Review 83(2):

104–112.

Sharma and Grant 23



Glaser BG and Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.Chicago: Aldine.

Goffman E (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Anchor.

Goffman E (1974) Frame Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Grant D and Hardy C (2003) Introduction: Struggles with organizational discourse. Organization

Studies 25(1): 5–13.

Grint K (2005) Problems, problems, problems: The social construction of leadership. Human Relations58(11): 1467–1494.

Harvey A (2001) A dramaturgical analysis of charismatic leader discourse. Journal of Organizational

Change Management 14(3): 253–265.Hertzfeld A and Capps S (2005) Revolution in the Valley. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc.House RJ (1977) A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In: Hunt JG and Larson LL (eds)

Leadership: The Cutting Edge. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 189–207.

Iedema R (2007) On the multi-modality, materiality and contingency of discourse analysis.Organization Studies 28(6): 931–946.

Johnstone B (2004) Discourse analysis and narrative. In: Schiffrin D, Tannen D and Hamilton H (eds)

Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 635–649.Jones EE and Pittman TS (1982) Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In: Suls J (ed.)

Psychological Perspectives on the Self, Vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 231–262.

Kahney L (2008) Inside Steve’s Brain. New York, NY: Portfolio.Karreman D and Alvesson M (2001) Making newsmakers: Conversational identity at work.

Organization Studies 22: 59–91.

Kets de Vries MFR (1988) Origins of charisma: Ties that bind the leader and the led. In: Conger JAand Kanungo RN (eds) Charismatic Leadership: The Elusive Factor in Organizational Effectiveness.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 237–252.

Khurana R (2002) The curse of the superstar CEO. Harvard Business Review 80(9): 60–66.

Kim A (2006) Apple iPhone Trademark, Analyst Speculation [online blog posting], Mac Rumors, 16October, accessed 12 July 2008. Available at: http://www.macrumors.com/2006/10/16/apple-iphone-trademark-analyst-speculation/.

Lam B (2006) Gizmodo Knows: iPhone Will Be Announced On Monday [online blog posting],Gizmodo, 14 December, accessed 12 July 2008. Available at: http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/cell-phones/ gizmodo-knows-iphone-will-be-announced-on-monday-221991.php.

Lindholm C (1988) Lovers and leaders: Comparative models of romance and charisma. Social ScienceInformation 27(1): 3–45.

Maccoby M (2000) Narcissistic leaders: The incredible pros, the inevitable cons. Harvard Business

Review 78(1): 68–77.McClelland DC (1961) The Achieving Society. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc.MacDailyNews (2006) Analyst: Apple could Sell 12 Million ‘iPhones’ Next Year [online article],

MacDailyNews, 11 September, accessed 12 July 2008. Available at: http://www.macdailynews.

com/index.php/weblog/comments/analyst_apple_could_sell_12_million_iphones_next_year/.MacDailyNews (2008) Does Apple need to talk about Steve Jobs’ health? [online article],

MacDailyNews, 30 December, accessed 8 January 2009. Available at: http://macdailynews.com/

index.php/weblog/comments/19543/.Mangham IL (1990) Managing as a performing art. British Journal of Management 1: 105–115.Mangham IL and Overington MA (1987) Organizations as Theatre: A Social Psychology of Dramatic

Appearances. Chichester, NY: Wiley.Meindl JR (1990) On leadership: An alternative to conventional wisdom. In: Staw BM and

Cummings LL (eds) Research in Organisational Behavior, Vol. 12. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press,159–204.

Miles MB and Huberman M (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis, (2nd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

24 Leadership 7(1)



Mumby D and Clair RP (1997) Organizational discourse. In: van Dijk TA (ed.) Discourse as SocialInteraction: Discourse Studies: Volume 2 – A Multidisciplinary Introduction. London, UK: SAGEPublications, 181–205.

Neuhauser PC (1993) Corporate Legends and Lore: The Power of Storytelling As A Management Tool.New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Ochs E (1997) Narrative. In: van Dijk TA (ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction: Discourse Studies:

Volume 2 – A Multidisciplinary Introduction. London, UK: SAGE Publications, 185–207.Potter J and Wetherell M (1987) Discourse and Social Psychology. London: Sage.Rhodes C and Brown AD (2005a) Narrative, organizations and research. International Journal of

Management Reviews 7(3): 167–188.Rhodes C and Brown AD (2005b) Writing responsibly: narrative fiction and organization studies.

Organization 12(4): 467–491.Ricoeur P (1984) Time and Narrative (Vol. 1). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Rose K and Albrecht A (2006) Episode 74 – November 30, 2006 [online video podcast episode],Diggnation – Revision3, 30 November, accessed 12 July 2008. Available at: http://revision3.com/diggnation/2006-11-30/.

Rosen M (1985) Breakfast at Spiro’s: Dramaturgy and dominance. Journal of Management 11(2):31–48.

Salzer-Morling M (1998) As God created earth . . . a saga that makes sense? In: Grant D, Keenoy T

and Oswick C (eds) Discourse and Organization. London, UK: SAGE Publications, 104–118.Schlenker BR (1985) Identity and self-identification. In: Schlenker BR (ed.) The Self and Social Life.

New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 65–99.

Schwabenland C (2006) Stories, Visions, and Values in Voluntary Organisations. Aldershot, UK:Ashgate Publishing.

Sculley J and Byrne JA (1988) Odyssey: Pepsi to Apple. Glasgow, UK: William Collins Sons and Co.Shamir B, House RJ and Arthur MB (1993) The motivational effects of charismatic leaders: A self-

concept based theory. Organizational Science 4: 577–594.Shaw R (2007) ThinkSecret smackdown: Steve Jobs’ and Apple’s Vladimir Putin moment [online blog

posting], ZD Net, 20 December, accessed 12 July 2008. Available at: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/

ip-telephony/thinksecret-smackdown-steve-jobs-and-apples-vladimir-putin-moment/2913.Simmons A (2002) The Story Factor: Inspiration, Influence, and Persuasion Through the Art of

Storytelling. London, UK: Perseus.

Stanford News Service (2005) Silicon Valley visionary Steve Jobs to deliver Stanford.Commencement address [press release], Stanford News Service, 6 January, accessed 1 August, 2008.

Available at: http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/2005/pr-commencement-011205.html.

Van Dijk TA (1997) Discourse as interaction in society. In: van Dijk TA (ed.) Discourse as SocialInteraction: Discourse Studies: Volume 2 – A Multidisciplinary Introduction. London, UK: SAGEPublications, 1–37.

Van Maanen J (1988) Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago

Press.Walker R and Monin N (2001) The purpose of the picnic: Using Burke’s dramatistic pentad to analyse

a company event. Journal of Organizational Change Management 14(3): 266–279.

Weber M (1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: The Free Press.Weick KE (1995) Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Wozniak S and Smith G (2006) iWoz – Computer Geek to Cult Icon: Getting to the Core of Apple’s

Inventor. London, UK: Headline Review.Yin RK (1989) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park: Sage.Young JS (1988) Steve Jobs: The Journey Is The Reward. New York, NY: Lynx Books.Young JS and Simon WL (2005) iCon – Steve Jobs: The Greatest Second Act in the History of Business.

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

Sharma and Grant 25



Abz Sharma is a PhD student in Work and Organisational Studies at the Faculty ofEconomics and Business, the University of Sydney. He holds a Bachelor of Commence(Hons.) degree in Management from the same university. His research interests includeleadership, technology and organisational discourse. His doctoral project explores theroutinisation of charisma, which brings into focus the lasting consequences of charismaticleadership practice upon organisational culture.

David Grant is Professor of Organisational Studies, at the Faculty of Economics andBusiness, the University of Sydney. He is also co-director of the International Centre forResearch on Organisational Discourse, Strategy and Change. The centre links leading man-agement and organisation scholars at 10 institutions in North America, Europe andAustralia who share an interest in discourse theory and analysis. His research interestsfocus on organisational discourse theory and discourse analysis especially where theserelate to leadership and organisational change. His work has been published in a range ofmanagement and organisation journals including Organization Studies, Academy ofManagement Review, International Journal of Human Resource Management, HumanRelations, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Management Communication Quarterly,Journal of Management Studies and British Journal of Management. He is also co-editor(with Cynthia Hardy, Cliff Oswick, and Linda Putnam) of the Sage Handbook ofOrganizational Discourse (Sage, 2004) which in 2005 received the US NationalCommunication Association, Organizational Communications ‘Book of the Year’ Award.

26 Leadership 7(1)



Leadership 2011 Sharma 3 26 1

Documents