The level of influence and skillfulness of a leader determine the success of an organization (Palshikar, n.d.). A good leader has control over the organization’s structure and also represents the organization’s culture. Moreover, good leaders have the capability of increasing an organization’s level of productivity.
There are many different leadership styles, such as autocratic, democratic, delegative, traditional, transactional, transformational, and charismatic (Palshikar, n.d.). While the transformational leadership style is similar to the charismatic leadership style, this paper focuses on charismatic leadership. In particular, this paper discusses the definition and process of charismatic leadership, as well as the traits that a charismatic leader possesses. As well, this paper discusses both the positive and negative effects of charismatic leadership.
According to Max Weber, charismatic leadership is defined as “resting on 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” (Palshikar, n.d., p. 2). Some examples of charismatic leaders include Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi, and even Adolf Hitler. The charismatic traits of these leaders made them seem almost like gods to their followers such that their followers supported them without question.
While Weber focused on the social conditions or patterns that were involved in charismatic leadership, more recent research has shown that charismatic leaders have a strong appeal to their followers’ values and that it is the psychological bondage between the leaders and their followers that make charismatic leaders successful (Jacobsen & House, 2001). However, neither of these theories alone can adequately explain the phenomenon; rather, a more holistic approach of combining Weber’s socially oriented approach and the psychological approach would yield a better understanding of this leadership style.
The charismatic leadership process comprises of three factors, namely the leader and his traits; the social situation where such a leader is needed; and the leader’s interaction with their followers (Jacobsen & House, 2001). Moreover, the charismatic leadership process goes through six steps, namely: 1.) Identification; 2.) Activity Arousal; 3.) Commitment; 4.) Disenchantment; 5.) Depersonalization; and 6.) Alienation (Jacobsen & House, 2001).
In the Identification stage, the followers are in a crisis and are searching for someone who is able to identify with their problems (Jacobsen & House, 2001). At this same time, the aspiring leader would come forward and present himself or herself as a potential leader for the followers, but at this point, the followers would be passive.
In the Activity Arousal stage, the leader urges their followers to become part of the change. At this stage, the once passive followers become active supporters of the leader and the leader’s cause. The longer this stage lasts, the longer the charismatic leader is able to assume their leadership (Jacobsen & House, 2001).
In the Commitment stage, the leader reaches the peak of their leadership, yet at the same time, starts to lose their charisma (Jacobsen & House, 2001). In this stage, the leader shows a great level of commitment to the cause, so much so that the leader is exposed to danger or is required to make a sacrifice. This makes their followers perceive them as truly courageous and dedicated such that they also show the same level of commitment to the leader. However, this may also make some of the elite followers feel disillusioned and start thinking that their leader might be a hypocrite or might be too pompous. At this stage, the leadership can also be reclassified or shift into either a personalized or socialized leadership. While the tendency with personalized leadership is for the leader to become exploitative and authoritarian, the tendency with socialized leadership is for the leader to become more egalitarian and to share the responsibility and authority with others. When this happens, the personalized leader often turns into a dictator and starts to lose their charisma while the socialized leader routinizes the leadership. Adolf Hitler was an example of a charismatic leader who became a dictator while Mahatma Gandhi was a charismatic leader who became a socialized leader.
In the Disenchantment stage, the leader brings the routinization in the leadership, which can make some followers feel that the goal has been lost (Jacobsen & House, 2001). This can also make some of the leader’s strongest supporters withdraw their support. However, this stage can also be brought about by the social structure or by the leader’s seeming failure. Furthermore, because charismatic leaders lack the abilities for formal procedural leadership, more failure and routinization result, which further disenchant the followers.
In the Depersonalization stage, the leadership becomes formalized and becomes more and more bureaucratic as a result of the routinization and because of the leader’s delegation of their tasks to their followers (Jacobsen & House, 2001).
In the final stage, Alienation, the formalization and bureaucratization of the leadership make the charismatic leadership redundant, which in turn makes the followers feel that the leader and the organization are veering away from the initial goal (Jacobsen & House, 2001). As a result, the followers start to alienate themselves from the organization.
In addition, the leader’s charisma fades as the social situation that needed the leadership changes. This stage does not necessarily mean that the leader has failed; rather, it can signify that the leader’s goal has been accomplished, thereby dissolving the need for the leadership.
Research has shown that the attachment that adolescents have to their parents influences their development into effective charismatic leaders (Towler, 2005). In particular, it has been found that adolescents who have secure attachments to their parents tended to form positive relationships with their followers in adulthood (Towler, 2005). As well, parental attachments that demonstrate relatedness, autonomy, and security during the adolescence stage lead to the development of self-esteem and self-confidence, which are characteristics of charismatic leaders (Towler, 2005). Similarly, these parental attachment styles can promote self-awareness in the child and as charismatic leaders later on, this self-awareness makes them introspective in the evaluation of their own beliefs.
In contrast, parental control can impede the child’s development where extreme psychological control, in particular, can make a child feel less confident and less secure (Towler, 2005). Not only does this prevent the child from developing into a charismatic leader; it also prevents them from successfully forming social relationships (Towler, 2005).
On the other hand, the other qualities of a charismatic leader include their abilities to self-monitor and self-actualize, as well as their motivation to achieve power, their self-enchantment, and their openness to change (Jung & Sosik, 2006).
In particular, the charismatic leader’s ability to self-monitor means that they are always aware that their followers are watching them, and as such, they ensure that they portray a good image of themselves (Jung & Sosik, 2006). They always make an effort to identify themselves with the social need. They ensure that they are able to always address the issues that led to their popularity in the first place. On the other hand, their ability to self-actualize means that the social situation alone is enough to motivate them and that they need no other extrinsic sources of motivation. As well, they are able to transfer this self-actualization to their followers, in effect raising them to a higher level.
Similarly, charismatic leaders aim to achieve social power. They are not so much interested in gaining conventional power or being assigned to an official post as much as they are interested in gaining the respect of their followers and being perceived as their followers’ saviors (Jung & Sosik, 2006). Charismatic leaders have very good social skills, which enable them to persuade their followers and appeal to their ethos. This leads to the longevity of their popularity.
In addition, the self-enchantment trait of charismatic leaders means that they are able to correct themselves and impose strict standards on themselves (Jung & Sosik, 2006). They always strive to become better, as they know that this makes them different and superior from their followers. Moreover, charismatic leaders don’t shy away from change unlike other types of leaders. They often instigate change and they are often most powerful in situations that require change.
As well, communication style is another dominant attribute of a charismatic leader (De Vries, Bakker-Pieper & Oostenveld, 2010). In particular, a charismatic leader is characterized by a communication style that is “assured, supportive, argumentative, precise, and verbally non-aggressive” (De Vries et al., 2010, p. 376). In the same manner, an effective charismatic leader is one who is socially active in providing and receiving advice from their followers (Balkundi, Harrison & Kilduff, 2011).
Moreover, in a study conducted by Hartog et al. (1999), it was found that the universally accepted attributes of a charismatic leader, which contributed to outstanding leadership, included being motivational, a confidence builder, positive, dynamic, trustworthy, communicative, and encouraging, as well as the ability for foresight and the ability to arouse motive (Hartog et al., 1999). Still, the study showed the following attributes to be universally accepted, none of which was considered as impeding outstanding leadership: willful, compassionate, sensitive, sincere, self-sacrificial, unique, self-effacing, ambitious, risk-taking, and enthusiastic (Hartog et al., 1999).
According to Ehrhart and Klein (2001), some of the values that are shared by the charismatic leader and their followers include the need for achievement and self-esteem, as well as an intrinsic work value and worker participation value (Ehrhart & Klein, 2001). This study also showed that the subordinates who preferred the charismatic leadership style perceived the charismatic leader as open-minded, adaptive, free, creative, and a survivor (Ehrhart & Klein, 2001).
In general, subordinates who preferred the charismatic leadership style appreciated the way that their leader allowed them to be creative in how they accomplished their work. By giving their subordinates more freedom in how they contribute to the achievement of the organization’s goals, charismatic leaders enable these subordinates to feel more valued. These followers also tend to be in awe of and are inspired by the charismatic leader, which further strengthens their commitment to the organization (McCann, Langford & Rawlings, 2003).
On the other hand, those who dislike this form of leadership perceive the charismatic leader as arrogant, zealous, ambitious, innovative, over-enthusiastic, and overbearing (Ehrhart & Klein, 2001).
As Ehrhart and Klein’s (2001) study suggested, the charismatic style of leadership appealed the most to followers who shared a similar personality with the leader and whose needs the leader is able to meet (Ehrhart & Klein, 2001). The former is consistent with the self-concept theory, which posits that people’s behavior tend to be consistent with their views of themselves (Ehrhart, 2012). In this regard, the followers who prefer the charismatic leadership style are those who tend to view themselves positively and who believe that they are capable of performing at a high level (Ehrhart, 2012). Conversely, the followers who have low self-esteem tend to perceive the charismatic leader as a threat to how they view themselves, as they may doubt their capability of meeting the charismatic leader’s expectations and they may feel that they are bound to fail. However, the findings of Ehrhart (2012) showed that self-construal had more influence than self-esteem over how followers react to various leadership styles. In particular, his findings showed that independent self-construal (i.e. how one views oneself independently of others) was the aspect of self-concept that was related to a preference for the charismatic leadership and that this was mediated by the leader’s dedication to the achievement of goals (Ehrhart, 2012). This means that the followers who prefer the charismatic leadership style are those who have the desire to achieve their goals and to express themselves. Moreover, the findings of Brown and Trevino (2009) suggested that, although the values of employees and their ties to their occupation are stable, a socialized charismatic leader is still able to ensure the alignment of certain values among their employees. These values include self-transcendence values, openness to change, and self-enhancement (Brown & Trevino, 2009). In this regard, Brown and Trevino (2009) indicated that socialized charismatic leaders can achieve values congruence either by transmitting their values to their followers or by transmitting a values message that is reflective of the followers’ values (Brown & Trevino, 2009). Moreover, the values transmitted can vary, depending on the occupational context (Brown & Trevino, 2009).
Charismatic leadership has both positive and negative effects. One of its positive effects is that it motivates people to exert more than what is expected of them and it increases their morale (Palshikar, n.d.). It has also been shown to increase team performance in organizations (Balkundi et al., 2011).
As asserted by Choi (2006), charismatic leadership has three components – envisioning, empathy, and empowerment – which lead to improved team performance. In particular, the charismatic leader’s envisioning behavior influences the leader’s followers to need achievement while the leader’s empathic behavior influences their followers to need affiliation. Similarly, the leader’s empowerment practices enhance their followers’ need for power (Choi, 2006). In turn, the followers’ enhanced needs, together with the leader’s behaviors, lead to a stronger self-leadership; increased organizational citizenship behaviors; a stronger group cohesiveness and collective identity; increased job satisfaction; improved task performance; and clearer role perceptions (Choi, 2006).
The envisioning component of charismatic leadership involves the creation of an overall picture of a desired goal, which people can identify with and which can excite them. On the other hand, empathy refers to the ability to understand other people’s emotions, values, and motives. It involves the ability to see something from the other person’s perspective. When applied to leadership, it entails behaviors, such as the appreciation of other people’s feelings; support for the other person’s ideas; and mutual trust. Also, charismatic leaders provide their followers with a sense of belongingness, which make them more willing to help others in the organization (Hartog, Keehan & De Hoogh, 2007). However, this effect was more evident among followers who had a low sense of belongingness, that is, those who were feeling isolated or disconnected from the group (Hartog, Keehan & De Hoogh, 2007).
Finally, the empowering quality of charismatic leadership leads to the followers’ improved perceptions of self-efficacy. This occurs when the leader is able to identify situations that are characterized by a sense of powerlessness and is able to remove those situations through both informal techniques and formal organizational practices Choi, 2006).
Aside from the positive effects of charismatic leadership within an organization, a study by Flynn and Staw (2004) showed that charismatic leadership also effectively obtained external support for an organization. The researchers asserted that charismatic leadership made a company more appealing to external investors, that is, the stock price of companies that were led by charismatic leaders increased more than other companies, even after considering the differences in corporate performance (Flynn & Staw, 2004). In addition, their study showed that appeals from a charismatic leader led to increased investment in the company and that the charismatic leader’s influence becomes even stronger as the organization’s turnaround becomes more difficult (Flynn & Staw, 2004). As well, the study suggested that the charismatic leader might have an effect on the risks posed by the organizational members’ behaviors (Flynn & Staw, 2004). This same result was obtained in the study conducted by Brown and Trevino (2006), which showed that socialized charismatic leadership decreased deviance in the leader’s work groups. This study showed that a similarity in values between the charismatic leader and their followers resulted in a decrease in interpersonal deviance but not in organizational deviance (Brown & Trevino, 2006).
On the other hand, one negative effect of charismatic leadership is that the leader can use their influence in a destructive manner (Palshikar, n.d.). As previous events in history have shown – examples of whom include Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden ---the higher the leader’s level of self-confidence, the more likely they are abuse their power (Palshikar, n.d.).Because of the leader’s effective communication skills and their innate charisma, their followers willingly follow them. Without any check on the power, it becomes very easy for the leader to corrupt (Palshikar, n.d.).
In addition, the relationship between the leader and their followers can be considered interactive in that the leader has power over their followers in the same way that the followers have power over their leaders. This further legitimizes the relationship regardless of whether the leader’s cause is positive or negative in nature.
Moreover, these negative effects can also be seen in the workplace setting. For example, in psychiatric departments, which are led by charismatic leaders, the members tend to ignore or tolerate any boundary violations – such as sexual relationships with patients – that are committed by their charismatic leader (Dorian et al., 2000). In this case, a collusion phenomenon occurs, which is “characterized by compartmentalization; fluctuating denial of fear of retribution; and the wish to maintain the idealization of a highly valued and special figure” (Dorian et al., 2000, p. 221). The leader may have also formed seductive relationships with the younger members of the department who feel that such relationships make them special. This leads to the professional standards and ethics being compromised. In turn, this can shake the foundation of an institution or impede its growth, especially if no disciplinary action is taken against the leader (Dorian et al., 2000).
In conclusion, although the traits of a charismatic leader are generally positive, the same traits can be used for negative and destructive purposes and the outcomes can be just as successful. In this regard, given the human nature of charismatic leaders, they should take extra care to stay focused on their positive goals and not fall into the trap of darkness.
References
Balkundi, P., Harrison, D. A. & Kilduff, M. (2011). Centrality and charisma: Comparing how
leader networks and attributions affect team performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 6(6), 1209-1222.
Brown, M. E. & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Socialized charismatic leadership, values congruence,
and deviance in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 954-962.
Brown, M. E. & Trevino, L. K. (2009). Leader–follower values congruence: Are socialized
charismatic leaders better able to achieve it? Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 478-
490.
Choi, J. (2006). A motivational theory of charismatic leadership: Envisioning, empathy, and
empowerment. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(1), 24-43.
De Vries, R. E., Bakker-Pieper, A. & Oostenveld, W. (2010). Leadership = Communication? The
relations of leaders’ communication styles with leadership styles, knowledge
sharing and leadership outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 367-380.
Dorian, B. J., Dunbar, C., Frayn, D. & Garfinkel, P. E. (2000). Charismatic leadership, boundary
issues, and collusion. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 54(2), 216-225.
Ehrhart, M. G. & Klein, K. J. (2001). Predicting followers’ preferences for charismatic
leadership: The influences of follower values and personality. The Leadership Quarterly,
12, 153-179.
Ehrhart, M. G. (2012). Self-concept, implicit leadership theories, and follower preferences
for leadership. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 220(4), 231-240.
Flynn, F. J. & Staw, B. M. (2004, April). Lend me your wallets: The effect of charismatic
leadership on external support for an organization. Strategic Management Journal, 25(4),
309-330.
Gordijn, E. H. & Stapel, D. A. (2008). When controversial leaders with charisma are effective:
The influence of terror on the need for vision and impact of mixed attitudinal messages.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 389-411.Hartog, D. N. D., House, R. J. Hanges, P. J., Dorfman, P. W. & Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A. (1999).
Emics and etics of culturally-endorsed implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of
charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? A working paper of the
Reginald H. Jones Center, The Wharton School University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved
Hartog, D. N. D., Keegan, A. E. & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2007). The interactive effects of
belongingness and charisma on helping and compliance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92(4), 1131-1139.
Jacobsen, C. & House, R. J. (2001). Dynamics of charismatic leadership: A process theory,
simulation model, and tests. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 75-112.
Jung, D. & Sosik, J. J. (2006). Who are the spellbinders? Identifying personal attributes of
charismatic leaders. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12(4), 12-26.
McCann, J. Langford, P. & Rawlings, R. (2003). New perspectives on the role of follower beliefs
as mediating influences between charismatic transformational leadership and
organizational commitment. Australian Journal of Psychology.
Palshikar, K. (n.d.). Charismatic leadership. Retrieved from
http://www.unc.edu/~ketan/documents/Charismatic%20Leadership.pdf.
Takala, T. (2005, March). Charismatic leadership and power. Problems and Perspectives in
Management, Issue 3, 45-57.
Towler, A. (2005). Charismatic leadership development: Role of parental attachment style and
parental psychological control. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(4),
15-25.
