Leader election outcomes as contextual moderators explaining the different frequencies of action-oriented terms and negation terms used in inaugural speeches of effective versus ineffective leaders and charismatic versus non-charismatic leaders: Evidence from 30 U.S. presidents

Psychologists have increasingly employed dictionary-based text analysis to examine the language of leadership, as leadership is embedded in a web of negotiated meanings and contextual factors. This research seeks to embed leaders’ rhetorical influence in leader–follower relationships and identify contextual factors that explain the different patterns of effective versus ineffective leaders’ and charismatic versus non-charismatic leaders’ uses of action-oriented terms and negation terms in their inaugural speeches. By analyzing data of 30 U.S. presidents’ inaugural addresses, presidential election outcomes, and leadership styles, I found that effective leaders used action-oriented terms more frequently in their inaugural speeches than ineffective leaders only when follower participation was low, whereas charismatic leaders used negation terms more frequently in their inaugural speeches than non-charismatic leaders only when follower endorsement was low. These findings suggest that effective leaders are attuned to action-related situational cues whereas charismatic leaders are attuned to value-related situational cues.