Search results

In the 1990s, scientists succeeded in demonstrating the highly positive effects of transformational and charismatic leadership on performance effectiveness, based on a large number of empirical findings. Bass (1985) predicted that this type of leadership would be related to “performance beyond expectations”. This has proved to be true to a very large extent. The so-called “new leadership approach “, however, has not yet succeeded in a close analysis of the interaction and influencing processes between charismatic leaders and their followers. This paper provides such an analysis. After pointing out the main problems with prior theoretical work, we offer an alternative model to help explain the emergence of charisma using social-cognitive and psycho-dynamic theories. Basically, we start from the premise that a focal person may be categorized as a charismatic leader on the basis of evaluative borderline attributes assigned to him or her, which are closely related to characteristics stigmatized by society. These attributes are exhibited consciously or unconsciously by the leader, either by means of social dramatization or by means of social reversion. We then propose a model of charismatic leadership relationships, which deal with both intra-personal and inter-personal feedback processes, based on recent theories of narcissistic behavior. Our overall intent is to help explain and clarify the processes between leadership behavior and the attribution of charisma.

We take as our point of departure Weber's well-known taxonomy of forms of authority (Weber, 1947; 1968). Traditional authority, which first of all characterizes pre-modern societies, is based on inherited privileges and positions. Legal authority, which is often termed rational and bureaucratic, is based on position and competence. In addition, it is impersonal. By contrast, charismatic authority is personal, not positional. It has one main feature, authority legitimated by the appeal of leaders who claim allegiance because of the force of their extraordinary personalities. Weber saw this kind of authority as liberation from the alienation, which the bureaucratic “iron cage” represented. The essence of charisma is a sort of life and vitality, which is the opposite of the formality of bureaucracy and the roles and conventions of traditional society (Weber, 1968, p. 24). Consequently, charisma implies a sort of renewal. According to one of Weber's most heavily quoted passages, charisma is based on “the devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him” (Weber, 1968, p. 46). The charismatic leader has, in other words, exceptional qualities and is accordingly “set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities” (Weber, 1968, p. 48).

The aim of this chapter is to argue that charisma is a collective representation, and that charismatic authority is a social status that derives more from the “recognition” of the followers than from the “magnetism” of the leaders. I contend further that a close reading of Max Weber shows that he, too, saw charisma in this light.

I develop my argument by a close reading of many of the most relevant texts on the subject. This includes not only the renowned texts on this subject by Max Weber, but also many books and articles that interpret or criticize Weber’s views.

I pay exceptionally close attention to key arguments and texts, several of which have been overlooked in the past.

Writers for whom charisma is personal magnetism tend to assume that charismatic rule is natural and that the full realization of democratic norms is unlikely. Authority, in this view, emanates from rulers unbound by popular constraint. I argue that, in fact, authority draws both its mandate and its energy from the public, and that rulers depend on the loyalty of their subjects, which is never assured. So charismatic claimants are dependent on popular choice, not vice versa.

I advocate a “culturalist” interpretation of Weber, which runs counter to the dominant “personalist” account. Conventional interpreters, under the sway of theology or mass psychology, misread Weber as a romantic, for whom charisma is primal and undemocratic rule is destiny. This essay offers a counter-reading.

While organizationally relevant outcomes of charismatic leadership have been studied more extensively, we do not know as much about when and why followers attribute charisma to leaders. Drawing on the self-concept based motivational theory of charisma developed by Boas Shamir and colleagues, we propose that congruence between leaders and followers on a core characteristic, namely organizational identification plays an important role. When leaders are high on identification with the organization, they embody and communicate the values of the organization more strongly in their vision and behaviors, which is likely to affect the attribution of charisma to these leaders, but only for followers who themselves strongly identify with the organization. In contrast, those leaders low on organizational identification are more likely to communicate messages that appeal to followers who are similarly low on identification. A multi-source study in the healthcare sector largely supports our model as congruence between organizational identification levels of leaders and followers is positively linked to perceived charisma and, in turn, charisma relates to followers’ organizational citizenship behavior.

Pygmalion and charisma are mutually compatible leadership constructs that beg integration. They share some basic assumptions about human nature, about how leaders lead, and about how they could lead more effectively. Nevertheless, for the most part these constructs are discussed in disparate academic literatures. The present treatise integrates these somewhat divergent yet partially overlapping approaches to leadership and management. The differences between Pygmalion and charismatic leadership, and the commonalities that they share, are explicated. The aim is to understand better how leaders affect followers and how they can exert their influence with greater effectiveness. Some ideas for further research and for more effective management practice based on integration of Pygmalion and charisma constructs are presented. The result is a description of “charismatic Pygmalion,” an integrated management style that embodies both leadership constructs.

The article addresses the relationship between social distance and charismatic leadership. Current theories of charismatic leadership in organizations have borrowed ideas from the literature on socially distant charismatic leaders and applied them to leadership situations that involve direct contacts between leaders and their immediate subordinates. This article argues that while social distance is not a necessary condition for charismatic leadership, there are fundamental differences between distant charismatic leadership and close charismatic leadership. The article attempts to identify these differences through a theoretical analysis of the two leadership situations and through an exploratory content analysis of interviews about close and distant charismatic leaders.

Using five categories summarized by Bass (1990), this chapter attempts to address three key questions about charismatic leadership:

• (1)

  What are the key behavioral dimensions of charismatic leadership?

• (2)

  How does charismatic leadership differ from other forms of leadership?

• (3)

  Who may become followers of charismatic leaders and when do they become followers?

What are the key behavioral dimensions of charismatic leadership?

How does charismatic leadership differ from other forms of leadership?

Who may become followers of charismatic leaders and when do they become followers?

By focusing on Weber’s original view of charisma, we suggest that his three dimensions of charismatic leader behaviors underlie most contemporary approaches. By considering these three dimensions in more detail, we demonstrate how this view allows for different views of leadership and is distinguishable from management. Finally, by extending Weber’s view and by identifying two types of charismatic leaders who differ in their power motives, we suggest how the characteristics of followers and the context influence followers’ acceptance of charismatic leaders as legitimate. Some implications for leadership effectiveness are discussed.

The primary purpose of this chapter is to examine some old truths about leadership at the CEO level, and to summarize a new perspective based on charismatic leadership theory that could help cast light on this important area of strategic management. In so doing, we attempt to move charismatic leadership theory in some new directions by bridging micro-and macro-level conceptualizations. The upper echelons perspective from the strategic management literature is first summarized. We then identify problems in conceptualization and measurement that have served to limit the usefulness of this theoretical approach with regard to understanding the leadership role and effects of CEOs. We present two alternative new models that incorporate the constructs of strategic change, CEO charisma, and perceived environmental uncertainty. Data are also presented, suggesting mixed support for the models. Suggestions are made with regard to future quantitative and qualitative research.

In this chapter, we examine the role of charismatic leadership in postcolonial Tanzania. Primarily used in sociological and political analysis, the concept of charisma has been viewed as a central component in nation-building in postcolonial Africa. Based on a decolonial perspective, we discuss charismatic leadership in Tanzania, focusing on Julius Nyerere, the first president of Tanzania. Nyerere, one of Africa's most influential leaders of the mid-twentieth century, fought the colonial rule, pushed for national independence and political freedom, and offered radical solutions to colonialism. Finally, the future directions regarding leadership in postcolonial Tanzania are discussed.