Special Assignments Require Charismatic Leadership, but There Are Limitations

Pundits and laymen often weigh in on the virtues and vices of charisma. Advocates of charisma look for tools and new information to be more engaging and magnetic. Invariably, these individuals desire distinction and recognition in an insipid and calamitous world. While adherents chase this illustrious trait and its manifestation, the downside of charisma is often misunderstood. It’s like the aspiring celebrity who once lied awake at night dreaming about millions of adoring fans in his first silver screen premier. The pomp and pageantry was palpable. Finally, the day arrived and that walk on the Red Carpet was just what he imagined. Now, his life is not his own. He has become property of the public where the loss of privacy is the price for fame and fortune. Of course, the fantasy is always better than reality. His current histrionics involve anything from throwing a phone across a crowded room to physical altercations with the paparazzi. The downside of fame and fortune seemed more manageable in the dream. In this instance, the actor chose his fate.

Conversely, true charismatic personalities are a combination of biological predisposition and environmental influences. Arguably, they didn’t consciously choose the dynamics that formed them. When charismatic personalities are exhibiting great oratory, colorful dialog and the ability for great interpersonal connections, they are demonstrating the affectation of charisma.

But, what is the less glamorous side of charismatic leadership? Is it true that charismatic leaders often have a high attrition rate among adherents? Are charismatic leaders often fired or summarily dismissed from positions and projects they were initially recruited to lead? The Mega church, World Changers headed by Dr. Creflo Dollar in College Park, Georgia is an excellent example of the vagary of charismatic leadership. Florence Duncan, a former World Changers member said, “"World Changers teaches a theology and doctrine that people want to hear… There's nothing wrong with wanting to prosper, but to present that as the central core of the teachings of Christianity is a deception and lie. I'd say that they would have just about as much chance of gaining abundant prosperity by purchasing a lottery ticket”(Sherrell, 1997, para. 32). Another former church member, Demetrius King said “I thought it could work...It sounds good and you would want it to work. It's as simple as one, two three -- tithe and you will prosper”(Sherrell, 1997, para 30). Reportedly, King left the church after his financial situation didn’t improve.

Charismatic leaders are adept at getting specific goals completed, but the challenge comes with the inability to manage the expectations of adherents. To this extent, charismatic leadership is a “double edged sword.” On one side, adherents hear and feel the direction of the charismatic leader and want to contribute to bringing the vision to fruition. On the other side, when tasks seem insurmountable, take too long or isn’t happening specifically as the charismatic leaders has proposed, disillusion, discontentment and disenchantment sets in. Thus the adherent leaves the organization and another hopeful convert takes his place. The shortsightedness of the charismatic leader shows his ability to inspire, but not acknowledge the limitations and co-dependency of his followers.

When charismatic personalities are rising stars within a company, the twinkle can often diminish. The late John Z. DeLorean was a star engineer at General Motors. DeLorean is credited for creating the Pontiac GTO, Pontiac Firebird and DeLorean DMC-12 sports car. “DeLorean always claimed he had fired General Motors, but it was actually the other way around: GM had fired him, basically because power had gone to his head, and he was more interested in dating (and marrying) young blondes in California than he was in the boring business of making cars. Even more importantly, he was no longer ‘making his numbers’ - an unforgivable sin for the suits in Detroit’” (Fallon, 2005, para 4).

Ousted Hewlett Packard (HP) CEO, Carly Fiorina is another example of the trappings of charisma. Fiorina was recruited by HP from Lucent Technologies Inc. in 1999. The following year, the company added chairman to her list of titles, making her the first woman to hold all three top posts — president, CEO and chairman — at a major computer company. Like DeLorean, as Fiorina began her quest to expand HP’s reach and competitive edge, dissenters pounced. Dr. James Owers, professor of finance at the Robinson College of Business at Georgia State University and an expert on corporate reorganization said “She brought about a major acquisition, that, from the objective of those of us who look at corporate restructuring, had absolutely no merit. Combining H-P with Compaq appeared to be more an ego trip, not a business deal. Many of us are still saying, ’Where’s the rationale here?’”(AP, 2005, para 8).

Authorities on leadership are quick to criticize the Charismatic leadership model as possessing more show than substance. Extensive tomes have been written on the ideal leader as if this mythical figure exists in a vacuum. While there are effective tools to be garnered from most leadership models, charismatic leadership may be one of the only leadership models where there is very little demarcation between the model and the personality. Other leadership traits may be transferable or separated from the individual, but the Charismatic leadership model is inextricable from the individual.

The effectiveness of charismatic leadership will hinge on the dynamics and longevity of the situation. If traditional leadership models are hatchets, charismatic leadership is a scalpel. Timing and precision are everything in its degree of effectiveness.



References

Associated Press (AP).(2005 February 9). Hewlett Packard top executive ousted. msnbc.com: Retrieved from: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6939785/

Fallon, I. (2005 March 22). John DeLorean: The man who fooled the world. The Independent: Retrieved from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/john-delorean-the-man-who-fooled-the-world-529467.html

Sherrell, R. (1997 Dec. 6). Creflo Dollar's World Changers Church International: Cult or Christianity. Creative Loafing: Retrieved from: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/d11.html

For more information, visit: Charisma

Drawbacks of Charisma Within Organizations

The Charismatic leadership model is effective when organizations are experiencing high attrition rates among personnel, budgetary restrictions (furloughs and cut-backs), increased sick-outs and low morale. In these instances, employees often seek intangible rewards, which reaps recognition and appreciation, which charismatic leadership engenders. Charismatic leadership is supplemental. Consequently, organizations can maintain their structure and protocol under the Traditional leadership model and still incorporate charismatic leadership. The Traditional model deals more with the quotidian aspects of corporate operations, while the Charismatic leadership model deals with special cases and interpersonal challenges that arise requiring advanced knowledge of human nature and the ability to move seemingly recalcitrant obstacles.

Drawbacks to the Charismatic leadership model are: Some leaders become megalomaniacs, exhibit strong dogmatic points of views and can be controversial when they feel their expertise is being refuted. These points speak to the notion that all leadership models carry a certain amount of baggage or “down side.” The same virtues of the Charismatic leadership model also can be vices. It’s one of the only leadership models where most individuals operate or create organizations through sheer force of personality. If the charismatic leader wasn’t occupying his current position within an organization, he very well would start his own company, crusade or religion. Eminent sociologist Max Weber talked about the “Routinization” of charisma. Under the routinization of charisma, the charismatic personality is infused into the structure or bureaucracy for the perpetuity of the organization superseding the physical presence of the charismatic leader. In other words, the survival of the organization, department or project after the charismatic leader no longer exists. Quite often, the momentum, tenacity and philosophy dissipate after the charismatic leader is no longer active. According to Grace Fleming (N.D.), instructor at Armstrong Atlantic State University in Savannah, Georgia :

A major problem with charismatic leadership is that group success tends to hinge on the leader. The charismatic leader is the glue that holds a group together. So what happens if the leader should have to step down or transfer? Normally, the group dynamic will fizzle and individual members will lose enthusiasm (Para 3).

The charismatic leader is invaluable in building on preexisting structures, but either need a successor or specific guidelines carried out by dedicated adherents for the work to continue. This is one of the major differences between Charismatic leadership and Transformational leadership. Under the Charismatic leadership model, power is consolidated within the individual. With Transformational leadership, power is dispersed to adherents.

Pundits who lambast the Charismatic leadership model often attempt to have it both ways. They desire the passion and drive of the charismatic leader, but fault him for not being more transformational. Pundits hold the charismatic leader responsible for not empowering subordinates whom are relegated to mindless sycophants. It was eminent philosopher Thomas Carlyle who said individuals seemed “hard-wired” for hero worshipping. Charismatic leaders can inspire, but true motivation, action and responsibility must come from individual efforts.


References

Fleming,G.(N.D.). Student leadership styles: Charismatic leadership. About.com guide. Retrieved from: http://homeworktips.about.com/od/studymethods/ss/leadership_4.htmFf

For more information, visit: Charisma

Charismatic Leadership Isn't Always Necessary!

Contrary to conventional wisdom, charisma isn’t the best solution in every situation. Many commentators on the various schools of leadership skew their research, opinions and recommendations to suit their personal predilections on leadership. While, the Charismatic leadership model is the preferred and promoted leadership model of the Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute, if a Traditional leadership model is affecting positive outcomes, the need for immediate charisma may not be necessary. In this case, charismatic leadership can be effective as a supplemental tool within traditionally led organizations. If an important committee has challenges recruiting dedicated members to carry out the objectives of an organization, charismatic leaders are highly effective in inspiring productivity and loyalty to an initiative. If a special project is being weighed down by employees waiting for management to draw the “Big Picture,” charismatic leaders are brilliant at vocalizing imagery.

Charismatic leadership is one of the only models where sheer tenacity, determination and personality are the intangibles for producing phenomenal results. A “die hard” charismatic is as much a product of a ceaseless need to prove himself valuable as well as a personality quirk. When individuals study to become more charismatic, they are confusing the affectations of charisma with the charismatic personality. You can develop the skill sets for reciting compelling stories, developing a sense of humor, and exuding confidence. But, being compelled to lead a crusade, mission or trail blaze requires biological and environment influences that merge organically.
Leadership models are designed to encourage people to act for the good of the organization with rewards and punishment. Charismatic leadership comes with similar sanctions. But, the biggest disappointment a follower could endure is not meeting the standard of the charismatic leader. Such exacting standards transcend organizational structures.

For more information, visit: Charisma

Charisma & Obama's Peace Rhetoric

The awarding of President Barack Obama of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize is an excellent example of a national phenomenon having international implications. The Nobel committee cited "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples"(Gibbs 2009 para 4). Charismatic politicians are masters at crafting messages and changing the mood and optimism of an environment. But, they don't have the ability to create facts from compelling rhetoric. To say that President Obama has transformed international diplomacy is a stretch at minimum and mythological at worst. "His (Obama) critics fault some of those efforts: those who favor a missile shield for Poland or a troop surge in Afghanistan or a harder line on Iran. But even his fans know that none of the dreams have yet come true, and a prize for even dreaming them can feed the illusion that they have" (Gibbs 2009, para 4). The impact of irrational exultation of charismatic politicians can be treasonous to the national interest of a country.

In a Machiavellian sense, it is ineffective to apply solutions inappropriately to a problem that affect the long term domestic and foreign policy of a sovereign nation. Given the contemporary challenges of geopolitics, the Latin dictum is most apt, " Si vis pacem, para bellum" (If you wish peace, prepare for war). In all fairness to President Obama, the media categorized him under the Charismatic leadership Model, although his overall attributes do not warrant inclusion. While President Obama fits Conger's (Bodow, 2002) notion that a charismatic personality has the ability to communicate a compelling vision for the future, that's where the buck stops for him. Charismatic communication is merely a manifestation of the missionary zeal characterized by charismatic personalities. To hone one's communication skills while lacking a deep philosophical infrastructure does not a charismatic personality make.

The upside to President Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize is that it sets a global political agenda for pro-Western allies. By labeling President Obama, "The Peaceful President," it’s difficult for rogue states like Iran and North Korea to have strong political standing on the world stage. When the U.S. has to take preemptive measures in the name of peace, it's an easier sell with a "redeemer" as president. When politics, media and constituencies intersect, ancillary institutions enter the fray to be on the "right side of history." Without creating another "Conspiracy Theory," geopolitics is always in play and charismatic politicians serve as instruments for strategic maneuvering. In President Obama's case, the Nobel Peace Prize is an additional act in the perpetual marketing production that has characterized the Obama Administration. It turns preparing for war, if you wish for peace on its head. Now the mantra is, "If you must war, appear peaceful."

References

Bodow, S. (2002 December 12). Charmed I'm sure. USA Today. para 6. Retrieved on September 19, 2009: http://www.usatoday.com/money/jobcenter/workplace/successstrategies/2002-11-15-charismatic-leaders_x.htm

Gibbs, N. (2009 October 9). Obama's Nobel, the last thing he needs. Time magazine online. Retrieved from: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091009/us_time/08599192939500

Is the Media Biased Against Un-Charismatic Politicians?

When a candidate complains that his charismatic opponent is receiving far more favorable coverage than himself, the media becomes more circumspect. Almost self-conscious. But, there is very little bias if the public is responding to a candidate with great enthusiasm. Professor Drew Westen, psychologist and neuroscientist at Emory University says,"The charge of bias against a charismatic contender can have a chilling effect on coverage, leading to an embargo on visual images that depict the reality of public response or an obligatory snarky comment or caveat following every story that describes something the candidate has done well. I saw the process in action during the primaries when Hillary's charge led to media concerns about airing footage that would seem too positive for Obama. On more than one occasion, a television producer would ask me for suggestions about film clips to illustrate the point I would be making on air a few hours later or a point they wanted to make, and would reject an appropriate clips because it was ‘too positive’ or because it was from a victory speech. But a victory speech is hardly unfair to show simply because it shows the candidate victorious. That's what victory is"(2008 para 3).


References

Westen, D. (2008 July 27). How should journalists cover a charismatic candidate? When the subjective is objective. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/how-should-journalists-co_b_115256.html.

Related: Charisma

The Changing Winds of Charisma

History is replete with the vagaries of politicians who are feted and lambasted with the winds of change. "…The British public did not see Winston Churchill as a charismatic leader in 1939, but a year later, his vision, confidence and communications skills made him charismatic in the eyes of the British people, given the anxieties they felt after the fall of France to the Nazis and the Dunkirk evacuation. Yet by 1945, when the public turned from winning the war to building the welfare state, Churchill was voted out of office. His charisma did not predict his defeat. The change in voters' needs was a better predictor (Nye 2008, para 6)." These sentiments are echoed within James Madison's Federalists Papers, # 57. Under this guise, human nature cut both ways. On one hand the people would elect representatives to be stewards for their interests. On the other hand, the ego and self-interest of the politician would keep him aligned with his constituency to gain re-election.

Charisma is effective in connecting a politician to the emotional security of voters, but ultimately, politicians must effectively meet the needs of constituents. This back and forth does make logical sense for public policy in conjunction with the nuance of human nature. It is the astute politician who uses charisma to skew favor to his side. Understandably, there will be times when a principled politician won't be able to satisfy the needs of his collective constituency. Being adroit and adept at saying "no," but allowing it to go down easily is the hallmark of effective politicking. This is the advantage charismatic politicians have over adversaries. The ability to use charisma as a tool to strategically ensconce difficult policies within the soft belly of visceral and practical realities. If played well within the media, such maneuvers suggest that the politician is "getting things done." Even when policies act unfavorably to some constituents, this won't necessarily be a deal- breaker, because constituents know when a line has been drawn between their individual greed and the overarching interests of a collective agenda.


References



Nye, J. (2008 May 6). The mystery of political charisma. Wall Street Journal.

Related: Charisma

Charisma: Its Effect on Politics & Media

The 1960 Kennedy-Nixon Debates ushered in an era of politics that has transformed how politics plays in the media as well as how public policy is formulated. The emergence of candidate-centered politics made individual personalities as important, if not more, than policy platforms. Eminent sociologist Max Weber transformed the concept of charisma from its religious origins to its secular manifestations. Weber asserted that charismatic personalities gained power and significance through sheer will, determination and ambition contrary to inheriting or climbing the corporate hierarchy (Weber 1978). His notion of Charismatic Authority was prescient in that this leadership model would find a place within modern politics. The Celebrity Industrial Complex (Orth 2004)turned celebrities into politicians and politicians into celebrities, which allowed California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to go from film star to governor without any political experience or political platform. The objectivity of the media became skewed, because journalists either fawned over charismatic politicians or were self-conscious about seeming overly positive when a charismatic politician connected with the public viscerally. The effectiveness of proposed public policy considerations were no longer vetted or mulled over, but presented to the public as "focus group" to determine its acceptance. How the proposed initiative resonated in the media would determine how hard politicians fought for legislative passage. Media objectivity has also been called into question when it has to juggle its role as public "truth provider" versus for-profit corporation. Arguably, the media has often opted for the latter with the notion, "If it bleeds, it leads." The bloodletting could be literal or metaphorical.

References

Orth, M. (2004). The importance of being Famous: Behind the scenes of the celebrity-industrial complex. New York. Henry Holt & Co., LLC.

Weber, M. (1978). Weber: Selections in translations. Runciman, W. (Ed.). United Kingdom. Cambridge. Press.

Related: Charisma