Why So Many Leadership Models, But So Very Few Leaders?

Becoming an effective leader is a notion bandied about within the private and public sectors, regularly. Leadership pundits from John Maxwell to Jim Collins have created a cottage industry on the subject of leadership. With so much accessible information on leadership development available, is society creating more leaders?

Edward Brown, M.S., of Core Edge Police Professional Development provides questions and answers about the numerous books, training and degrees for leadership development and their impact on producing new leaders.

Q: How do you define a “Leader?”

Brown: Dictionary.com defines a leader as “A person who rules, guides or inspires others.” In its most simplistic form, anyone who has followers might be characterized as a leader. 

Q: So, when we say we need or want more leaders. What are we really asking for?

Brown: From a historical perspective, we want epic heroes that capture our imagination.  The philosopher, Thomas Carlyle said that humans are hard-wired for hero-worshipping. If a notion of God didn’t exist, we would create one.  When we think of effective leadership, we are pulling from these traditions.

Q: So, would you say that our notion of leadership has become a fantasy?

Brown: In part, if our traditions of leaders come from politics, religion, military and business, then we will consistently judge leadership by these standards. Often the impact of leadership is viewed through a rearview mirror, and may not be seen in the same vein by the followers of their time. The late Steve Jobs arguably surpassed the achievements of Thomas Edison, by transforming at least four different industries. But, we don’t emotionally feel the legend of Jobs as we do Edison. One hundred years from now, the future generation will mythicize Steve Jobs and he will be that generation’s Thomas Edison.  

Q: So with the phalanx of pundits promoting leadership development, are we producing more leaders?

Brown: Again, it depends on your expectation of leaders. A better question might be, “Do we still need leaders as we did in the past in the same way?” James MacGregor Burns is credited for coining the “Transformational Leadership” model. He rebuffed the charismatic leadership model, because he viewed charismatic leadership as too self-absorbed and personality driven.  The aim of the Transformational Leadership Model is to empower people to become self-governing and self-reliant. As such, have we produced a society of self-reliant, self-governing individuals where leadership becomes less necessary?

Q: You noted earlier that Thomas Carlyle said humans are “hero-worshippers.” Are we trying to have it both ways by placing the responsibility of self-reliance on the backs of leaders?

Brown: It won’t be the first time we passed the buck of self-empowerment to someone else. But, anyone can lead. If more people merely took responsibility for their families and communities, demonstrated fair and equitable work habits, and studied human nature, leaders would be plentiful. We don’t need any more leadership models. We merely need to implement what is already available.

Q: What will it take for individuals to become more self-directed for assuming more responsibilities?

Brown: Good question. Self-reliance and self-governance seem to take place most when individuals don’t have safety nets or unrealistic expectations from others. As long as there are people, either through ego or philanthropy, willing to assume the burden of others, people will continuously look for leaders. More books will be sold. More leadership development degrees conferred. And more people looking for the next Alexander the Great. 

For more thoughts on leadership, visit: www.amazon.com/kindle/dp/B00J3I58H0

Definition of Charismatic Leadership

Ed Brown of Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute defines Charismatic Leadership as "A leadership model where personality, relentless determination, and creativity are the basis for persuading and influencing individuals toward productivity and/or profitability."

How Charismatic Leaders Develop Revolutions (Movements)

Are You a Charismatic Leader? A Qualitative Analysis

Does Transformational Leadership Create Charismatic Leaders?

In this Q & A session, researcher on charisma and charismatic leadership, Edward Brown of Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute, provides insight into the possible impact of transformational leadership on charismatic leaders.

Q: What is the difference between transformational leadership and charismatic leadership?

A: Actually, the charismatic leadership model predates the transformational leadership model by several decades. Eminent sociologist, Max Weber (1864-1920) is credited for secularizing the concept of charisma and the charismatic leadership model. James MacGregor Burns is credited with developing the transformational leadership model in 1978.

Essentially, the two leadership models share the same traits. Charismatic leaders and transformational leaders are described as visionaries, inspirational, and great orators. The major distinction researchers make between the models is that charismatic leaders are power driven to complete a mission; whereas transformational leaders empower individuals to become more independent and less dependent on the leader.

Q: Why do you think there is so much disagreement among researchers about transformational leadership versus charismatic leadership?

A: I believe some representatives of the charismatic leadership model have given it a negative connotation. Hitler, Mussolini, and Amin come to mind. Proponents of transformational leadership have taken the positive traits of charismatic leadership and made transformational leadership a morality driven model. Transformational leadership is reminiscent of charismatic leadership when charismatic leadership had a religious connotation attached to it under church historian Rudolph Sohm.

Q: What do you think is the connection between transformational leadership and charismatic leadership?

A: My thoughts are premature on this particular notion. However, I hypothesize that transformational leaders create charismatic leaders.

Q: Could you elaborate?

A: I was trying to decide if Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was more of a transformational leader or a charismatic leader. If he was trying to transform the segregated conditions of his time and the people around him, then he was transformational. But, if he had a selfish motive for his cause, he may be closer to the charismatic leadership model. I surmised that he was transformational in that he transformed legislation, race relations and self-determination for black people. However, the people he transformed appear to operate more to the charismatic leadership model. Jesse Jackson, Andrew Young, Ralph David Abernathy, Hosea Williams, John Lewis, and Joseph Lowery fall under the charismatic leadership model. Although they all shared a common experience, each man carved out a niche for himself in the market place. Although they are/were influential, arguably, not one of these men has created an institution bigger than themselves. That is not necessarily a bad thing. I was not attempting to judge the contributions of these men, but determine the difference between transformational leadership and charismatic leadership.

Q: Do any other examples come to mind?

A: Yes, Elijah Muhammad of the Nation of Islam was transformational, but Malcolm X and Minister Louis Farrakhan are under the charismatic leadership model. In this regard, charisma can support the work of the transformational leader (Dr. King and Elijah Muhammad) or create a body of work within itself, Steve Jobs and Apple technology products and Denzel Washington and his body of film work.

For more information, visit: Charisma

Charisma & The Fight Over Leadership

The interplay between charismatic leadership, transformational leadership, transactional leadership as well as other traditional leadership models is always fascinating. Are pundits trying to determine the ideal leadership model or merely playing each model off each other as a form of brinkmanship? Once more, is a person's personality geared towards one leadership model over another? Certainly, a life-long introvert wouldn't necessarily adopt the Charismatic Leadership Model to follow. While the Charismatic Leadership Model may have ideal traits the introvert may emulate, invariably, the core genotype for charisma may not be present. Consequently, hybrid approaches in leadership development may be necessary based on current social conditions. There has been an ongoing "Intellectual Donnybrook" where pundits square off one leadership style versus another. In the end, the winner is the style most favored personally by the pundit (based on his own temperament).

At the core, each leadership model is attempting to persuade or assuage the natural narcissism within each individual for the greater good of the organization. At the macro level, charismatic leadership may resonate with one group of individuals more viscerally than a traditional form of leadership. At the micro level, a leader may have to use various leadership styles for individuals in a smaller group as a means of group cohesion. It's the leader who is malleable and mutable to the context of the situation as well as the personalities involved who will triumph. While there may be core traits within each leadership model, the would-be leader could and should use leadership models as mere tools for achieving an objective. To suggest a leadership model exists that is purely altruistic is naïve. Whether it's a mission, crusade or profitability, leadership is created to feed the hungry need of the overarching objective.

Related: Charisma