YOU CANNOT ACT KING: PERFORMED CREDIBILITY OF POLITICAL LEADERS IN TIMES OF ELECTIONS S. van Zuydam Tilburg University, the Netherlands [email protected] T. Metze Tilburg University, the Netherlands Concept, please do not cite without permission of the authors Paper prepared for the PSA Annual International Conference, panel: Questioning leaders’ authority Abstract Source credibility is essential for political leaders in a mediatized world in order to get their messages and actions accepted. Citizens attribute credibility to political leaders time and again and due to adjustments in their evaluation credibility fluctuates. This ascription of credibility takes place in interactions between political leaders and their audiences. The source credibility approach to credibility suggests that leaders are credible if audiences consider them competent, trustworthy, and caring. However, in the source approach to credibility the interplay between leaders and audiences remains underexplored: why do audiences consider leaders competent, trustworthy, and caring at some moments and not at others? The concept of performed credibility enables an understanding of meteoric shifts in source credibility attributed to political leaders. Performed credibility is the enactment and framing of political leadership in these interactions. Audiences interpret and reinterpret the believability of leaders on the basis of their (media) appearances. In these appearances leaders enact and audiences frame the leaders’ credibility. In this paper we explore how leaders and audiences codetermined the credibility of the Dutch social democratic leader Job Cohen. His source credibility declined dramatically in the 2010 parliamentary election campaign. Our analysis demonstrates that shifts in the audiences’ framing of Cohen’s appearances contributed to this drop. Hence, to fully understand the dynamics of credibility, the study of performed credibility needs to be included in the study of source credibility. Introduction To get things done, leaders need to be considered credible. This is true both for organizational leaders and political leaders (Conger and Kanungo, 1987; Kouzes and Posner, 2003). Even though political parties and issues are still important for the development of political preferences and voting behaviour (Karvonen, 2010; van Holsteyn and Andeweg, 2010), political leaders have taken centre stage in politics as a consequence of the personalization of politics. They need to communicate their views persuasively to gain political support of party members and citizens (Campus, 2010; Langer, 2010; McAllister, 2007). Here credibility is crucial; a lack thereof reduces the acceptability of their political program (Self, 2009; O’Keefe, 1990; Perloff, 2010), because as Kouzes and Posner note: ‘If people don’t believe in you, they won’t believe in what you say’ (2003: XV). A person’s credibility is not set in stone. Jimmy Carter’s rise during the election campaign and the quick disillusion with his performance once in office is infamous (Hargrove, 1988) and the former mayor of Amsterdam Job Cohen, provides a Dutch example of a leader whose credibility declined rapidly (Kleijwegt and Van Weezel, 2013; Parool, 2010b; Reformatorisch Dagblad, 2012). Cohen announced his candidacy on March 12 2010 and aimed for the prime ministerial office in the 2010 2 parliamentary election. While welcomed with enthusiasm, in the course of a few months polls showed a substantial decline of Cohen’s grades for overall performance (Synovate, 18-3-2010a; Synovate, 4-6-2010c; TNS Nipo 1-6-2010b), of the confidence that he would succeed as a prime- minister (De Hond, 2010a), and a decline of his rates as most preferred prime minister (De Hond, 2010b; De Hond, 2010d; De Hond, 2010c; TNS Nipo, 1-6-2010b). Credibility can be defined on the basis of ‘characteristics’ (political) leaders are thought to have. In this regard, credibility is understood not as a commodity that leaders possess, but in terms of the perception of the receiver. Research in this source credibility approach has consistently found that being credible means being considered competent, trustworthy, and caring. These dimensions are attributed to ‘sources’ – for example political leaders, academics or media sources – and therefore we speak of source credibility (Berlo et al., 1969; Hovland et al., 1953; McCroskey and Teven, 1999; O’Keefe, 1990; Perloff, 2010; Barisione, 2009; cf. Andersen and Clevenger, 1963; Teven, 2008). What remains underexplored, however, is why audiences – those receiving leaders’ communication (Lilleker, 2006) – consider leaders competent, caring, and trustworthy. In addition, the question remains why audiences’ evaluation of a leader’s source credibility changes. Therefore, we argue that this source credibility is established (‘enacted’ and framed) in the interactions between political leaders and their audiences. Hence, these elements are not only attributed (or not) to a source – in our case a political leader - time and again; it is a constant ‘negotiation’ and framing of the leader’s competence, trustworthiness and caring among and between several audiences and the political leader (Peck and Dickinson, 2009; Szerszynski et al., 2003; Hariman, 1995; Hilgartner, 2001). As a consequence, political leaders ‘perform’ their credibility repeatedly (Hajer, 2009). We understand ‘performance’ not in the managerial sense of effectiveness nor as a single (media) presentation, but we situate it in a dramaturgical approach and emphasizes the symbolic dimension of (political) leadership. Performed credibility of political leaders is a way to understand shifts in attributed source credibility. This concept draws attention to (a) the way credibility is enacted and framed by a political leader in (media) presentations, and (b) the interconnectedness of this enactment and framing with audience’s framing of her credibility. Below, first we further conceptualize this relationship. Second, the empirical part illustrates this innovative conceptual approach. Subsequently, we answer the question how the dynamics in Cohen’s performed credibility -studied as the audiences framing of Cohen’s media presentations – reflects the decline of Cohen’s source credibility between March 12 and June 9 2010. We distinguish three phases in their framing: ‘Cohenmania’; ‘the statesman with a stammer’; and ’the leader who did not live up to the expectations’ and we conclude that Cohens’ diminishing performed competence is explaining the decline of his overall source credibility. 3 Performed Credibility Since the 1950s the source credibility approach in studying credibility has been developed. This approach rooted in studies on persuasion focusses on the perceived characteristics that speakers – in this case political leaders1 – need to have to be considered credible by their audiences. Consensus is that three dimensions constitute the core of the credibility construct: competence, trustworthiness, and perceived caring (Berlo et al., 1969; Hovland et al., 1953; O’Keefe, 1990; Kouzes and Posner, 2003; McCroskey and Teven, 1999). To establish whether a leader is competent, audiences determine whether a leader – for example a candidate in UK parliamentary elections or a CEO of an organization - understands what is going on and what needs to be done (O’Keefe, 1990). As such, competence refers to leaders’ skills and knowledge necessary to substantiate their claims and actions. Trustworthiness relates to the reliability and honesty of the leader. It is about the likeliness that a leader will tell the truth and that he will not be deceptive (Hovland et al., 1953; Perloff, 2010). Perceived caring, finally, entails that leaders show empathy with their audiences’ problems, that they listen to them, and that they have their interests at heart (McCroskey and Teven, 1999; Teven, 2008; Perloff, 2010). Former US president Clinton, for instance, who was thought to connect with people’s concerns especially well. A focus on the source does not mean that credibility is considered a stable characteristic that a leaders possess. In line with the relational approach (’t Hart and Uhr, 2008; Barisione, 2009), scholars working within the source credibility tradition to credibility argue that it is up to audiences to attribute credibility to their leaders; leaders have to earn it. This also implies that the degree to which a leader is considered credible can fluctuate from one audience to another, as well as that one audience might judge differently depending on the occasion (O’Keefe, 1990; Kouzes and Posner, 2003). These fluctuations in attributed credibility become apparent in longitudinal surveys on attributed source credibility of political leaders. However, to understand the dynamics of attributed source credibility, we need to turn to practice, and study the enactment of trustworthiness, competence and caring in interactions between leader and audiences. Hence, we take the relational view on credible leadership one step further and move to an interactional view (Gardner and Avolio, 1998; Klein and House, 1995; Sinha, 2010). Next to questionnaires about perceived source credibility, especially the study of media-performances of political leaders is relevant. When we take into account the mediatization of politics (Strömbäck, 2008; Campus, 2010; Hajer, 2009); we have to study the media appearances in which performed credibility can change. A leader will enact and audiences will frame the competence, trustworthiness, and caring of a leader time and again.