The Transactional Nature of Charismatic Leadership

Often researchers who view charismatic leaders as expert manipulators do not investigate the transactional relationship between the charismatic leader and followers. Kallis (2006) discussed the impact of leaders and followers who benefited within the German and Italian military under Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. To suggest that the German and Italian citizenry followed the dictates of Hitler and Mussolini out of fear would undermine the strengths of the charismatic leadership model. Although each man articulated and exemplified an ideal for his respective country, a transactional relationship existed between the leaders and followers. Followers supported Hitler and Mussolini, because these leaders instilled the self-respect and integrity within their followers lost in World War I. Both leaders represented the glory and esteem that their fellow countrymen saw within themselves. Kallis suggested that this intangible exchange created an unqualified psychological contract between the leaders and followers. In essence, if Hitler and Mussolini could restore their respective countries to greatness, they could garner continual support from constituents. Loyalty among followers grew incrementally as the charisma of the two leaders created a mythology of future prosperity. Hitler and Mussolini became prophets and messiahs to their followers.


References

Kallis, A. (2006, June). Fascism, ‘charisma’ and ‘charismatisation’: Weber’s model of ‘charismatic domination’ and interwar European fascism. Totalitarian Movements & Political Religion, 7(1), 25-43.

For more information, visit: Charisma

What Sacrifices Would Charismatic Personalities Make to Achieve Their Goals?

If the charismatic narcissist uses individuals to affect a bigger mission, would he sacrifice individuals for the sake of he mission? Bizumic and Duckitt (2008) contend that given the choice between self-interest and the interest of others, the charismatic narcissist will choose self-interest. They cite information pointing to the fact that both Hitler and Stalin were willing to give up their countries when it no longer served their goals. When Hitler realized that he would lose the war, he started to despise Germany and was ready to sacrifice it, saying, “Germany is not worthy of me; let her perish” (quoted in Hershman & Lieb, 1994, p. 187).

So whether it is the musician Prince switching out bands for the sake of his music or Hitler and Stalin abdicating their country for individual gain, research suggests that the charismatic narcissist is relentless when achieving a goal and will discontinue and forsake all alliances when it is in his best interest to do so. The upside for corporations and organizations is that usually a charismatic narcissist has checks and balances through by-laws, corporate governance and board of directors. The recent debacle in the housing and financial industries reflects what happens when a megalomaniac goes unchecked—he brings down a company. Both empirical and theoretical evidence suggests that narcissistic individuals
lack integrity. For instance, narcissism has been found to be negatively related to integrity outside of organizational settings (Mumford et al., 2001).


References

Bizumic, B. and Duckitt, J. (2008 June). My group is not worthy of me: Narcissism and ethnocentrism. Political Psychology, vol. 29 Issue 3, p. 437-453, 11 p., 5 charts.

Hershman, D. J., & Lieb, J. (1994). A brotherhood of tyrants: Manic depression and absolute power. Amherst: Prometheus Books.

Mumford, M. D., Connelly, M. S., Helton,W. B., Strange, J. M., & Osburn, H. K. (2001). On the construct validity of integrity tests: Individual and situational factors as predictors of test performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 240–257.

For more information, visit: Charisma

Charisma & The Will to Power

At first glance, the notion of charisma as a self- serving tool might be off-putting. But a closer examination would go to the reason individuals become leaders in the first place. The idealistic model suggests that leaders traditionally assume the leadership baton, because he or she has the best intentions for the perpetuity of civilization in mind. There is no doubt that this may be the case. In both examples, Hitler and Dr. King had the interests of their respective countrymen in mind. They were both responding to the immediate needs and desires of their constituencies. However, both men knew their audiences and what would motivate them towards action. Individuals don't necessary assume leadership roles because they embrace a notion of popular consensus, but because they believe their ideas are better. In short, they will to power to exercise these ideas for self-gratification primarily and for the uplifting of the masses secondarily. Whether it is politicians, clerics or well-meaning individuals, most charismatic leadership as well as other forms of leadership, begin with a compelling idea of supremacy.

This would stand to reason. After all, what would be the need for alternatives, if the status quo was sufficient? The desire for betterment is at the core of human motivation and innovation. Witness the rise of mega churches, with charismatic leadership often the progenitor of its success. What more commentary could individuals provide from biblical scriptures that have been around for two thousand years? The cleric who says he has another point of view by which he builds a church is self- aggrandizing, which invariably leads to congregants accepting his point of view as a guide to a better way of life.

Let's be clear that charismatic leadership, while initiated from the self- interest of the leader, is progressive in that it cuts through the rhetoric of why individuals become leaders in the first place--to achieve a goal and a mission. The general rules for leadership modules have gone off course mainly because it proposes to be politically correct rather than effective. The reason there is a saturation of leadership models with very little leaders is because they largely attempt an overly idealistic reality about human nature. Man was never as good as pundits have asserted. And any criticism on the part of humanity is largely excused in favor of lofty ideas regarding man's inherent design to be "God-like", but consistently falling short of this grace. As man continues to fall off the horse, our hope is that eventually he will become an experienced rider.

Related: Charisma

Charisma & "The Age of Individualism"

The current "Age of Individualism" has ushered in a new paradigm for leadership development---the charismatic leader. Charisma is defined by Dictionary.com as "A spiritual power or personal quality that gives an individual influence or authority over large numbers of people." The Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute defines charisma as "The creating of perceptions that impact the mind and emotions of others through flair, finesse and glib langauge."

Charismatic leadership is a form of leadership often discussed in passing, but rarely explored through scholarly measures. It is a controversial form often admired, but also bastardized. Eminent sociologist, Max Weber (1864-1920) is credited for being the first person to demystify the term "charisma." Up until Weber, charisma was viewed as an intangible trait bestowed upon a chosen few. Charisma was seen as a religious term and thus not viewed as possessing secular traits. Weber articulated that charisma was a learned skill set that was the most effective and important among bureaucratic and feudalistic forms of leadership.

Out of these three forms, charismatic leadership had to be earned and cultivated. With bureaucratic leadership or legal-rational, where a person is appointed or elected, the institution rewards the individual who pledges his allegiance to the hierarchy. By showing a degree of competency, that individual may ascend to the top seat. While he needs adequate communication skills and the ability to get along with others, he is largely supported by the infrastructure. With feudalistic or superior/subordinate leadership, power is often inherited and competency is implied. Keeping power and position within the family creates dynasties.

Contrary to these forms, charismatic leadership relies on the will, passion and personality of the individual. He has to sell his ideas and initiatives to the populous to get its buy-in. This leader does not have a hierarchy or infrastructure that supports his leadership. Instead, he rallies support from pure imagination and tenacity. Charismatic leadership is the most difficult type of leadership to achieve and the most challenging to maintain.


Weber talked about the "Routination" of charisma, where charismatic leadership builds institutions purported to outlive the leader. The controversy arises in whether these institutions can survive the mortality of the charismatic leader. Charismatic leadership is the essential model where a person has to literally sell his vision to unbelievers with the hopes of creating behavioral change. In the current "Age of Individualism," the task often appears daunting and insurmountable. The late Maynard H. Jackson, former Atlanta Mayor, once told a group of aspiring leaders that leadership is less about meeting to discuss agendas and more about creating momentum through a compelling idea that people want to follow. The idea that the populous is somehow well versed on the ideal leader is out of step with reality. Charismatic leadership has thrived throughout history because an awe-inspiring personality drives a vision to its manifestation in response to an unmet need within the populous. Witness the charismatic styles of Martin Luther King, Jr. versus Adolph Hitler.

For more information, visit: Charisma