Charismatic Leadership Versus Transformational Leadership

Researchers disagree about charismatic leadership and transformational leadership being synonymous or two distinct leadership models. Den Hartog, House, Hanges, Ruiz-Quintanilla, and Dorfman (1999) stated in their study that several attributes reflecting charismatic/transformational leadership are universally endorsed as contributing to outstanding leadership. These attributes include: motive arouser, foresight, encouraging, communicative, trustworthy, dynamic, positive, confidence builder, and motivational.

However, Yukl (1999) drew a distinction between the two leadership models. Yukl stressed that transformational leaders seem more likely to take initiatives that empower followers and make followers partners in an endeavor. Contrarily, charismatic leaders seem more likely to emphasize the need for radical organizational changes that can be accomplished if followers place their trust in the charismatic leader’s abilities. The core behavior, motivation, and traits make transformational and charismatic leadership unlikely to occur at the same time.

Dubrin (2010) noted that a key component of transformational leadership is the leader’s ability to inspire people and make major changes within an organization. Although charismatic leaders are inspirational, they do not bring about major changes within an organization (Dubrin, 2010). Johnson (2012) argued that charismatic leadership and transformational leadership were not interchangeable terms. Johnson suggested that charismatic leadership is more individual or personality centered in that followers had emotional ties to the leader that approached idol worship. The transformational leader encouraged followers to be independent of leadership; whereas the charismatic leader encouraged followers to rely on the leader.

Johnson postulated that transformational leaders raise the morality of both leaders and followers and serve as a model for ideal behavior. On the other hand, charismatic leadership is more results focused. Johnson believed emphatically that transformational leaders are charismatic, but that charismatic leaders are not necessarily transformational. Charismatic leaders are more concerned about what works as opposed to what is right. Johnson appeared not to disagree that charismatic leaders affect organizational development, but inherently believed that the moral barometer within charismatic leaders is ethically skewed toward achieving successful results at any cost. Johnson appeared suspicious of the charismatic leader’s motives and seemed to suggest that impure thoughts produce impure results.

References

Den Hartog, D.N., House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S.A., and Dorfman, P.W. (1999 Summer). Culture specific and cross culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 219.

Dubrin, A. J. (2010). Leadership: research, findings, and skills, 6th edition. Ohio: South-Western Centage Learning.

Johnson, C.E. (2012). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light or shadow, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Yukl. G. (1999 Summer). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285.

For more information, visit: Charisma

Is the Charismatic Leader a Super Hero?

The Charismatic leadership model offers other challenges to researchers. Often charismatic leaders are viewed as superheroes that swoop down in a moment of need, reminiscent of fictional characters such as Batman and Superman. Within organizational development, finding these heroes becomes even more challenging during times of crisis. Jacobsen (2001) showed that all the conditions that should create the charismatic leader’s appearance, does not. Shamir, House, and Arthur (noted within Jacobsen’s study) mapped the conditions when charismatic leaders appear. The charismatic leader’s appearance is most apt when: 1. The situation is perceived to threaten important values, 2. The relationship between performance and goal achievement is nebulous, 3. The situation is unstable, and 4. The task requires exceptional effort. Attempting to reconcile some sense of pragmatism between the superhuman traits under Jacobsen’s concept with the realism under Callan’s views makes identifying the traits, conditions, and environment that much more problematic to uncover.

Jacobsen tried to bridge the gap empirically by identifying six historical figures deemed charismatic by their transforming an organization, country, or movement. Some individuals included John F. Kennedy, Lee Iacocca, and Adolf Hitler. The biggest challenge with attempting to gauge the charismatic leadership models’ impact on organizational development under Jacobsen is that it happens after the fact. Once the event is over and recorded by history, researchers are tasked with attempting to analyze and articulate what happened. This is more the challenge with monumental events. The impact of the event cannot be thought until it transpires. Contemporary CEOs such as the late automotive designer John DeLorean and Hewlett Packard’s (HP) Carly Fiorina, who was ousted by HP, are not emblematic of the invincibility attributed to the charismatic leadership model. Though they were rising stars at one point of their careers, they could not maintain the luster of the charismatic leader. The subjectivity of the charismatic leadership model makes it such that success is measured far into the future compared to the objective standards ascribed to the traditional leadership model. With the traditional leadership model, the CEO enhances stakeholder profitability, cuts costs, and expands into new markets or does not.

References
Jacobsen, C. (2001 Spring). Dynamics of charismatic leadership: A process theory, simulation model, and tests. Leadership Quarterly, 12(1), 75.

Related: Charisma

The Impact of Charismatic Leaders Founding Organizations

Though the impact of the charismatic leadership model is often discussed within established organizations, there are other challenges with charismatic leadership when the leader is the founder or owner of an organization. Hernandez and Leslie (2001) identified some challenges of charismatic leaders who founded organizations and the leaders’ inability to move forward or select a successor. The potential void left by the charismatic leader’s departure creates a degree of insecurity throughout the organization. Anxiety is developed among frontline personnel as well as organizational stakeholders become overly dependent or ambivalent over the potential void left by the charismatic leader who produces split loyalties. At the end of a charismatic leader’s reign, such uncertainty and fractured loyalties could divide the organization. Hernandez and Leslie went on to say that an organization’s continuity is better served when the charismatic leader exerts influence in creating a vision for the future of the organization as opposed to allowing frenzy within the infrastructure. Also the natural fear of the unknown within individuals could be ameliorated through clear and consistent communication. Additionally, the board of directors could be proactive in identifying potential concerns in operations before these concerns trickle down to the lower echelon of the organization.

References

Hernandez, C.M., and Leslie, D.R. (2001 Summer). Charismatic leader the aftermath. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 11(4), 493.

For more information, visit: Charisma

The Charismatic Leadership Model is Difficult to Measure Objectively

Researchers are challenged with developing instruments to measure the impact of charismatic leadership on organizational development. At first look it would seem logical that the same measures that apply to measuring other leadership models should be apropos for measuring charismatic leadership. Rowold and Laukamp (2009) reported that existing empirical support highlights the positive relationship between charismatic leadership and subjective indicators as important to organizational success. However, there are few studies that have examined the relationship between charismatic leadership and objective measures. Rowold and Laukamp asserted that this lack of measuring objectivity makes it difficult to view charismatic leadership through objective lenses. Following Rowold and Laukamp’s perspective to its logical conclusion suggest that charismatic leadership is difficult to validate because of its subjective nature. If charismatic leadership is founded on the vagaries and capriciousness of individualized responses, it becomes not only challenging to quantify its effectiveness but also to decipher the immutable principles that can be taught to budding leaders and managers within corporate structures.

References

Rowold, J., and Laukamp, L. (2009 Oct.). Charismatic leadership and objective indicators. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58(4), 602-621

For more information, visit: Charisma

Following Charismatic Leaders

Yukl (1999) acknowledged the strong personal identification followers have with charismatic leaders as a means of solving problems germane to the needs of followers. Yukl stopped short in his assessment by suggesting that followers identified more with the mission than with the charismatic leader when their needs were tied to the mission. Yukl also pointed to researchers often looking at the socially acceptable behavior of charismatic leaders to achieving a goal and not the manipulative practices sometimes practiced by charismatic leaders over followers. Researchers have preconceived notions about charismatic leadership and followership that often becomes self-fulfilling prophecies. Researchers either believed that charismatic leadership is directly related to organizational advancement or to organizational regression. Yukl suggested that there were opportune times when charismatic leadership was most effective for organizational development as well as providing the most advantageous opportunities for followers. These opportune times for charismatic leaders are: When a visionary entrepreneur overcomes difficulty in establishing a new organization, a guru of a new religion, a passionate revolutionary who transforms a corrupt organization from the ground up, and a manager who rescues a company from the brink of extinction.


References

Yukl. G. (1999 Summer). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285.

Related: Charisma

Charismatic Leaders as Visionaries

Waldman and Yammarino (1999) defined Chief Executive Officer (CEO) charisma in two parts. First, CEO charisma is the behavioral characteristics of the leader, including: the articulation of a clear vision based on personal values, a consistent demonstration of these values, high performance expectations of himself and followers, confidence in followers’ abilities to meet the challenges, and the assumption of personal risks. Second, CEO charisma involves a relationship between the CEO and one or more followers. Relationships must be close in proximity as well as distant within the organizational structure. In addition, followers must internalize their commitment to the vision of the leader.

Nadler and Tushman (1990) asserted that vision and charisma are not enough to sustain large system changes. Although charisma is necessary in business for improving interpersonal relationships, a business model must go beyond inspired individuals. Nadler and Tushman cited Don Burr of People Express as an example of the pitfalls of visionaries under the charismatic leadership model. Burr had a far reaching dream to expand the markets of People Express Airline; however, fell short based on his inability to translate a vision into a cohesive senior executive team as well as make the necessary organizational changes to flourish. This incapacity for improving People Express’ infrastructure caused its demise. The complexities in a global market call for business expertise and operations not often attributed to charismatic leadership. To this extent, charismatic leaders are viewed myopically. Researchers tend to focus on the emotional impact charismatic leaders often exude rather than charismatic leaders being strategist for implementing far-reaching plans.

(Excerpts from Strengths & Weaknesses of Charismatic Leaders on Organizational Development) by Edward Brown

References

Nadler,D., and Tushman, M. (1990 Winter). Beyond charismatic leader: Leadership and organizational change. California Management Review, 32(2), 77-97.

Waldman, D.A., and Yammarino, F.J. (1999 Apr.) Ceo charismatic leadership: Levels-of-management and levels-of-analysis effects. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 266-285.

For more information, visit: Charisma

Charisma & the 90 Day Rule for Women

Dear Mr. Brown:

Recently, I read comedian Steve Harvey’s book, “Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man….” He gave some good pointers for women to follow in attracting and maintaining the man of their dreams. One suggestion Steve provides is for a woman to wait 90 days before engaging in physical intimacy with a man. Do you think rules work on charismatic men or do women need a different manual for dealing with charismatic men?

Sharon Johnson
Chicago, IL


Dear Ms. Johnson:

Thank you for your inquiry. First, Steve Harvey has done a great job of extended his brand into relationship expert, game show host, TV and radio celebrity, and bestselling author. Any man who has lived over 50 years has learned a few lessons along the way. However, any notion of a “one size fits all” approach to dealing with men should be viewed carefully. There are instances when a couple has had sex on their first date and spent the rest of their lives together. Conversely, there have been couples who have waited until marriage to have sex and the marriage ended in divorce. Harvey’s idea is admirable for women to gain men’s respect before having sex. But, it is quite possible for a man to wait 90 days to have sex with a woman, while having sex with a series of other women in the interim. For women to control the sexual habits of men, women throughout the world have to agree on the same agenda. In other words, every woman in the world has to agree and communicate the conditions in which sex will be expended to men. Since the self-interest of women will always take precedent over collective interests, women will not wield any true power in this arena. Women exercise the greatest amount of power and influence over men when men are in love with them, not because they are necessarily having sex.

Better advice for women would be to study the psychological make-up of men and the ways men gain and leverage power. Again, a woman cannot control a man by withholding sex unless every woman in the world has agreed to withhold sex from the same man. A woman can maintain her moral standards by refusing to indulge in sex with certain men, but this is where her control ends.

In addition, charismatic men often wield a certain degree of power---perceptually and realistically. Consequently, charismatic men do not have to wait any amount of time to have sex when they desire. Every man has experienced some form of rejection from women. The issue is not how often a man fails to achieve his sexual objectives, but how often he achieves his objectives despite rejection. For every three women who reject a handsome, smart, and charismatic man (due to insecurity, mistrust or disinterest), another woman will provide all the comfort he needs.

Books, movies, and symposiums can be great empowerment opportunities for women, but these tools should serve as a basis for self-mastery and understanding the core of human nature.

Related: Charisma