What is it about?
This article focuses on the most salient of persuasion strategies engaged in the construction of leadership in three different yet apparently interrelated domains of public life and public policy, political communication, management/business discourse, and academic communication.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
A preliminary conclusion from the analysis of these mechanisms is that the three discourses under investigation reveal striking conceptual similarities with regard to the main strategies of credibility-building and enactment of leadership. At the same time, they reveal differences at the linguistic level, i.e. regarding the types of lexical choices applied to realize a given strategy.
Perspectives
The study found that at the conceptual level, patterns of persuasion, credibility-building, and enactment of leadership used in political, management and academic discourses are (surprisingly) similar at least with regard to the main cognitive strategies used, such as consistency, source-tagging, metaphor and blockage of the cheater detection mechanism. Further studies will show whether this similarity extends over some other leadership and credibility strategies, for instance those involving different argumentative schemata.
Iga Lehman
University of Social Sciences
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Leadership, credibility and persuasion, International Review of Pragmatics, February 2020, Brill,
DOI: 10.1163/18773109-01201101.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
