Search results

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.

This paper reviews and compares six theoretical explanations of the effects of charismatic leaders on their followers. Of the six explanations two are based on psychoanalytic theory, two on attribution theory, one on a sociological theory of symbolic centers, and one on the social psychology of the self-concept. The review exposes differences among the explanations in their motivational assumptions, their predictions regarding leader behaviors and effects on followers, and the mediating mechanisms they posit between leader behaviors and effects on followers. The most critical differences are highlighted and suggested as foci of future research on charismatic leadership.

Leaders’ emotional intelligence (EI), personality, and empowering behavior have been heavily studied in the organizational behavior literature. To date, the majority of research on EI and personality has shown their significant influence on personal outcomes. It has also been suggested that empowerment is a fundamental psychological mechanism underlying follower outcomes. Nevertheless, little attention has been paid to the effect of team leaders’ EI and personality on team outcomes and the potential mediating effect of team leaders’ empowering behavior. In this study, we developed theoretical rationale and empirically tested the effect of team leaders’ EI and personality on team climate and the mediating role that team leaders’ empowering behavior plays in this relationship. The results supported most of our hypothesized relationships, that is, the positive effects of team leaders’ EI and agreeableness on team climate were mediated by team leaders’ empowering behavior, whereas team leaders’ openness to new experience was not related to empowering behavior and team climate. Finally, theoretical and practical implications were discussed.

It has generally been assumed that effective leadership is a key to successful change. But, as some authors have noted, there is a dearth of empirical research regarding the impact of leadership on organization change. In this chapter, we review the empirical evidence from the past 20 years in an attempt to determine the impact of leadership on the conduct and outcomes of organizational change. Our conclusions indicate that the leadership of change is more complex than envisioned, involving multiple forms of leadership engaged in different approaches, behaviors, and activities, only some of which are effective.

The relevance of affective factors in the charismatic leadership process has been widely acknowledged in leadership research. Building on this notion, the present study empirically investigated the role of leaders’ positive mood and emotional intelligence in the development of charismatic leadership behaviors. We developed hypotheses linking these constructs and tested them in a sample of 34 leaders and their 165 direct followers from a multinational corporation. Results showed that both leaders’ positive mood and leaders’ emotional intelligence were positively related to their charismatic leadership behaviors, as rated by followers. Further, we found leaders’ emotional intelligence to moderate the relationship between leaders’ positive mood and their charismatic leadership behaviors. Emotionally intelligent leaders exhibited charismatic leadership behaviors to a high extent, largely irrespective of their degree of positive mood. In contrast, leaders low on emotional intelligence were more likely to exhibit charismatic behaviors when their positive mood was high, while they were less likely to exhibit such behaviors when their positive mood was low. We conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for leadership theory, research, and practice.

The purpose of this paper is to help clarify the actions of effective emergent leaders in self-managing work teams (SMWTs). Multiple methods were used to test hypotheses that leader's behaviors consistent with the development of emotionally competent team norms (interpersonal understanding, caring behavior, creating an optimistic environment, and proactive problem solving) would be more strongly linked to team trust, open communication, personal task engagement, and team effectiveness than traditional task-focused leader's behaviors (directive statements, using questions). Most hypotheses were supported. Directive leader's behaviors were for the most part negatively associated with team trust, open communication, and personal task engagement. It is argued that in SMWTs that have a history and a future together, emergent leaders who engage in behaviors that build emotional competence in the team are more likely to create team effectiveness than emergent leaders focused on directing team members.

Articulation of a vision is commonly held to be a critical component of theories of outstanding leadership – both transformational and charismatic leadership. Although there is reason to suspect that vision contributes to leader performance, less is known about the nature and origin of viable visions. In the present chapter, we argue that leaders’ visions can be viewed as a prescriptive mental model reflecting beliefs about the optimal functioning of an organization. To test this proposition, outstanding leaders possessing two contrasting types of prescriptive mental models were identified: ideologues whose models stress the maintenance of extant standards and charismatics whose models stress adaptive change. These two types of prescriptive mental models were associated with distinct patterns of leader behavior in a sample of notable historic leaders. The implications of these findings are discussed with respect to current theories of outstanding leadership.

In this paper, we examine the effects of legitimation and delegitimation of female leaders in male- and female-dominated organizations on leader behavior toward their subordinates. Drawing upon status and legitimacy theories, we argue that delegitimation represents one event that makes gender stereotypes salient in different organizational contexts, and by this means affects leader–subordinate interaction. Gender stereotypes will be more salient in male- than in female-dominated organizations, but only when female leaders are delegitimated. Specifically, we hypothesize that deauthorized female leaders will exhibit more deferential and less directive behavior than authorized female leaders, and this effect will be stronger in male- than in female-dominated organizations. Authorized female leaders, however, will express a similar amount of deferential and directive behavior, regardless of organizational sex composition. To test these hypotheses, we created a laboratory experiment with simulated organizations. Results are mixed. Deauthorized leaders are marginally more deferential than authorized leaders, and this effect is stronger in male-dominated organizations; authorized leaders express similar amounts of deferential behavior in both types of organizations. Yet, leaders are more directive in male- than in female-dominated organizations, whether they are deauthorized or authorized. We discuss the implications of these results and future directions for this research.

In this chapter, we integrate recent theories on followers’ self-concept and transformational leadership theory in order to develop a conceptual framework for understanding the exceptional and diverse effects transformational leaders may have on their followers. We propose that transformational leaders may influence two levels of followers’ self-concept: the relational and the collective self thus fostering personal identification with the leader and social identification with the organizational unit. Specific leader behaviors that prime different aspects of followers’ self-concepts are identified, and their possible effects on different aspects of followers’ perceptions and behaviors are discussed.