Charismatic Leadership

Summary of the main points of the theory

Our vision of charismatic leaders is often marred with images of autocratic, authoritative leaders like Hitler, Stalin, and Caesar. This is of no surprise as the basis of much of charismatic leadership is power. As Heifetz, Grashow, and Linsky note:

The powers and influence that come from formal and informal authority relationships have the same basic structure. The social contract is identical: Party A entrusts Party B with power in exchange for services. Sometimes this contract is formalized in a job description or an authorization establishing a task force, organizational unit, government agency, or organizational mission. Sometimes the contract is left implicit, as it is with charismatic authorities and their constituents, or with our subordinates and lateral colleagues, who may to varying degrees trust, respect, and admire you, and therefore give you the key power resource of their attention. However, all authority relationships, both formal and informal, appear to fit the same basic definitional pattern: power entrusted for service—“I look to you to serve a set of goals I hold dear (Heifetz, Grashow, Linsky, 2009, p.22).

Historically, charismatic leadership was theorized virtually at the same time by Max Weber and Sigmund Freud who “…described charismatic leaders as having unusual interpersonal appeal and the ability to rally people to a cause based on the sheer force of their personalities” (Hogan and Hogan, 2004, p. 99). Weber describes as charismatic those leaders whose “…personal strength [is] proven time and time again…[he] derives his authority by proving his power in practice. He must work miracles, if he wants to be a prophet. He must perform heroic deeds, if he wants to be a warlord. Most of all, his divine mission must prove itself by bringing well-being to his faithful followers…” (Weber, 1947, p. 1114). Charismatic leaders are extra –ordinarily gifted and capable of transcendence. Transcendence is attributed implicitly to both the qualities of leader and the content of his mission, the former being variously described as “supernatural, superhuman or exceptional” (Weber, 1947, p. 358). Weber does not exclude any charismatic leader in his definition including the “’berserk’ whose spells of maniac passion have, apparently wrongly, sometimes been attributed to the use of drugs” (p. 242), the “’shaman,’ the magician who in the pure type has to be subject to epileptoid [sic] seizures as a means of falling into trances” (p. 242), the “sophisticated swindler” of which he names Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism (p. 242), and finally “ the type of litterateur, such as Kurt Eisner, who is overwhelmed by his own demagogic success(p. 242).

Leadership theories centered on charisma are focused on personality and have developed from instrumental writings including: House (1977) who developed a rating system based on Weber’s descriptors (see; Stogdill, 1963, Manual for the Leader behavior description questionnaire) ; Bass (1985) and Burns (1987) who develop differences between transformational and transactional leadership, as well as Drucker (2009) and Senge (1990). Leadership “…discussions also refer to laissez-faire (non-interfering) leadership, in which the leader does nothing” (Hogan and Hogan, 2004, p. 99).

Pros

As paradigms shift there has been a tendency to re-appropriate the names of several of the key traits of leadership. For instance, in many businesses the stigma of the “charismatic leader” is frequently referred to as the autocratic or authoritative leader. Culturally there has been a shift by calling them “paternalistic leaders” (Pellengrini and Scandura, (2007). However, as Gustanis (2004) notes “there is a strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and autocratic leadership behavior” (69). Although, Goleman (2000) argues that “according to the data, the authoritative leadership style has the most positive effect on climate…” (Goleman, 2000). This may be because followers prefer to have a strong leader with strong convictions who serve their own “follower” interests. Paternal leadership theorist Amatea (2004) notes that culturally this is a learned behavior noting that paternal leaders

“…often demand obedience from their children with little consideration of the effect on the children’s development. Hence, the authoritarian leadership style is characterized by a high degree of demandingness [sic] coupled with a low level of responsiveness and warmth toward children. Authoritarian parents attempt to shape, control, and evaluate the behavior and attitudes of their children in accordance with an absolute set of standards. These parents emphasize obedience, respect for authority, work tradition, and the preservation of order” (Amatea, E., 2004, p. 480).
Furthermore Gustainis (2004) notes that “persons high in authoritarianism strongly preferred a leader (whether political, religious, social, or job-related) who was task oriented, structuring, directive—and autocratic” (Gustainis, J., p. 69).

Cons

Shaw (1995) notes that this charismatic authoritarian leadership type increases the independence of the leader and decreases the independence of the followers “…since the authoritarian leader would be permitted to function with little regard for the desires of the followers, while the followers would be restricted by the desires of the leader” (Shaw, 1995). This is problematic as per Weber’s guidelines which indicate that the mythos of the charismatic leader is to “…perform heroic deeds…” and to “…prove [himself] by bringing well-being to his faithful followers” (Weber, 1947, p. 1114). Senge (1990) notes that “so long as such myths prevail, they reinforce a focus on short-term events and charismatic heroes rather than on systemic forces and collective learning (315). In teaching leadership to students this is difficult to overcome as the mythos reinforces the belief that great leaders are “made” which feeds into the “Great man theory.” Senge (1990) continues that “at its heart, the traditional view of leadership is based on assumptions of people’s powerlessness, their lack of personal vision and inability to master the forces of change, deficits which can be remedied only by a few great leaders” (Senge, 1990, 315).

Practical implications for use in teaching college students in the 21st Century

Drucker, with his practical management advice notes that “leadership does matter, of course. But, alas, it is something different from what is now touted under this label. It has little to do with ‘leadership qualities’ and even less to do with ‘charisma.’ It is mundane, unromantic, and boring. Its essence is performance” (p. 229). Drucker’s message in its simplest form is that leadership can be taught and is not reliant upon “charisma.” To do this the student must shed the heroic and autocratic images of the charismatic leader with which they have been inundated. Drucker (2009) notes that “…effective leadership doesn’t depend on charisma. Dwight Eisenhower, George Marshall, and Harry Truman were singularly effective leaders, yet none possessed any more charisma than a dead mackerel” (229). Furthermore, Drucker states that “John F. Kennedy may have been the most charismatic person ever to occupy the White House. Yet few presidents got as little done” (Drucker, 2009, p. 229). Nevertheless, this may be the single most difficult obstacle to overcome with student development and leadership, that being, helping students to understand that one need not be charismatic to be a leader.

References

Drucker, P. (2001). The essential Drucker: The best of sixty years of Peter Drucker’s essential writings on management. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 78-90.

Gustainis, J. (2004). Autocratic leadership. In G. Goethals, G. Sorenson, & J. Burns (Eds.),

Encyclopedia of leadership. (pp. 113-119). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412952392.n31

Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard Business Press. Boston, MA.

House, R. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. Working paper series 76-06. Paper presented at the Southern Illinois University fourth biennial leadership symposium. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED133827

Hogan, J., Hogan, R. (2004). Big five personality traits. In G. Goethals, G. Sorenson, & J. Burns (Eds.), Encyclopedia of leadership. (pp. 113-119). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412952392.n31

Pellengrini, E., Scandura, T. (2007). Paternalistic Leadership: A review and agenda for future research. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings [serial online]. Retrieved March 3, 2014.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
New York: Doubleday/Currency.

Shaw, M. E. (1955). A comparison of two types of leadership in various communication nets. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 50(1), 127-134. doi:10.1037/h0041129

Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Roth, G. and Wittich, C. (eds). University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.