Is Charisma a Personal Quality or a Trait - Essay Example

Is charisma a personal quality or trait? Introduction Charisma has been studied and theorized in various ways by different sociologists, psychologists, and management specialists. Charisma has been studied as an individual’s personality and also as a trait that is seen in various behavioural aspects of the individual. Behaviour of charismatic leaders is regarded as novel and different from others; these leaders have the courage to go against conventional norms and processes. The present composition about charisma as a trait or personality has been evaluated based on various qualities and behaviours exhibited by the most well-known leaders of the world. In addition, these qualities have been studied from a perspective that enables one to understand the extent of their adaptability by any leader, which can result in outcomes similar to those achieved by the charismatic leaders. The concept of charisma as a trait has been elaborately explained in Weber’s work related to leadership in the civil society. Originally, Weber referred to charisma as an inherent quality of an individual, which makes that individual very different from the ordinary men and gets treated as someone specially awarded with paranormal, heroic and exceptional qualities. Later, Weber narrowed this definition to include specific personal qualities that distinguish the individual from other people. Based on Weber’s generalization and pontification of charisma, Shils defined charisma as, “the quality which is imputed to persons, actions, roles, institutions, symbols and material objects because of their presumed connection with ‘ultimate,’ fundamental,’ ‘vital,’ order-determining powers” (1982; p.110). Weber refers to charisma as one of the three bases of legitimate authority in the institutional setup (Weber & Eisenstadt, 1968). While Weber’s original concept of charisma emphasizes on charisma as a personal quality, his later descriptions that refer to institutional charisma such as that in bureaucratic institutions. In fact, Weber’s philosophy bases the evolution of all social organisations on charismatic qualities of few individuals (Kim, 2004). Extending the definition of charisma in contemporary institutional sphere, Klein and House (1995) define charisma as “a fire that ignites followers’ energy and commitment, producing results above and beyond the call of duty” (cited by Daft and Lane, 2007; p.359). Charismatic leaders have the ability to revitalize large masses of people and organisations with a strong faith and confidence. These leaders are capable of attracting people emotionally, mentally as well as physically. Charisma is the result of perception of the believers or followers about a specific individual that the group believes to possess extraordinary qualities. From this viewpoint, Wilson (1975) interpreted that Weber’s concept of charisma denotes a relationship between believers or followers and the charismatic individual, and not an individual personality attribute. A few known charismatic leaders are AIG’s Hang Greenberg, GE’s Jack Welch, Tyco’s Dennis Kozlowski, SouthWest Airline’s Herb Kelleher, Disney’s Michael Eisner, and HP’s Carly Firona (Robbins, 2010; p.183). Political figures of this group include Martin Luther King, Winston Churchill, Nelson Mandela, Mohandas Gandhi, Franklin Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln (Cameron & Lavine, 2006). Charismatic qualities have been evidenced by many supporters of the current president of the United States of America, Barack Obama (Coggins, 2009). All these people are credited for their contribution towards transformation, for ability to move large masses over the world and for leaving an everlasting impact on the society and individuals. The qualities exhibited by people with charisma are certainly unique. This is the only aspect of leadership that is unique and distinct, which makes the leaders extraordinary. The key leader behaviours, as described by House (1977) and Shamir et al (1993) include articulating an appealing vision, communicating high performance expectations, displaying self-confidence, role modeling exemplary behaviour, expressing confidence in followers’ abilities to achieve goals, and emphasizing ideological aspects of work and collective identity (Yammarino, Dionne & UK Chun, 2002). These leaders portray their vision as more promising than the present status quo. If the vision and present situation are very different, then followers tend to get drawn towards the futuristic vision and will attribute the vision to the leader. Charismatic leadership is also about expressing vision that is unique, taking personal risks, and empathetic involvement with others. These leaders have the ability to understand their followers’ needs, which is made known to the followers through their speech. Charismatic leaders are highly committed to their vision and goals; they do not hesitate to take personal risks and sacrifice to achieve their vision. Howell (1988) has identified two types of charisma, socialized charisma and personalized charisma. As stated by Yammarino et al (2002; p.28), socialized charismatic leaders are characterized by high need for power with high activity inhibitions, low tolerance to authority or restraints, strong internal beliefs, and high self-esteem. Personalized charisma seeks exploitation of others, personal dominance, authoritarian behaviour, and working for self interests. These people have low activity inhibition, high narcissism, external beliefs, and low self esteem. While socialized charisma results in creation of a unique emotional and values-based bond with their followers, personalized charisma culminates in one-person authority over the followers with little or no impact on values and principles. For example, socialized charisma is that of most revered historic legends such as Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Mohandas Gandhi and personalized charisma is that of Adolf Hitler. Bass (1990) attributes charisma as a personality that transformational leaders possess, which helps them in inspiring their followers, creating an emotional bonding, as well as intellectually stimulate them. Followers tend to develop a high degree of trust and respect for their leaders that possess charisma, which helps followers believe that their goals can be accomplished with more effort. In this article, Bass (1990) mentions charisma as a quality possessed by transformational leaders. Transformational leaders use their charisma to instill their vision in their followers through flamboyancy and grandness. These leaders have the ability to articulate their vision in a manner that is understandable and acceptable by others. In this article, Bass argues that transformational leadership can be instilled in transactional leaders by helping these leaders acquire specific traits of charismatic leaders. Hence, this article views charisma as one trait that can be adopted or learned by any leader. According to Rejai and Phillips, the concept of charisma is not open to empirical or scientific discourse because of its close association with individual’s personality (Eatwell, 2002). Eatwell (2002) points out Weber’s formulation of charisma as belonging to a specific personality type and also asserts that such charisma can be cultivated, as evidenced in many politicians. Besides the vision, unconventional approach, and a quest to rediscover an idealized situation, all the charismatic leaders did have a personal presence, as seen in Gandhi, Hitler and Mao Zedong. There were other leaders, like Lenin during the Soviet Revolution, that were successful in instilling a feeling of devotion in smaller groups than larger masses, yet these leaders are considered to be charismatic. From this viewpoint, Eatwell (2002) emphasizes the leader’s mission as the driving force to move larger masses. Another important characteristic of charismatic leaders is their ability to handle failures. Eatwell (2002) describes certain key traits exhibited by charismatic leaders. Firstly, charismatic leaders are saviours; for example, Hitler’s efforts not only stabilized the government but also introduced many public work reforms that benefited the citizens in long term. Charismatic leaders’ grand vision has a resonating effect. Charisma is strongly associated with heroic actions, like that of Mussolini. Charismatic leaders’ success and sustenance involves lot of struggle and sacrifice. Charismatic leaders have the ability and strength to discern enemies and friends, and their efforts to recreate a community involves elimination of enemies. Charismatic leaders inspire their masses to take responsibility of their mission and its outcomes. Krogstad and Storvik (2007) assert that charismatic leadership is shaped by the societies of the individuals. In their study, they argue that charismatic leadership is more common in highly modern countries and among highly educated people that live like aristocrats. Others like Graham Little (1985) and Swindler (1979) also stressed on similar aspects and pointed that such charisma is characterized by qualities like play, creativity, humour and an exploring attitude (Krogstad & Storvik, 2007). These qualities point to liberty and volatility of charisma, which are qualities attributed to personality of an individual. Weber emphasizes that charismatic leaders have a heroic and anti-authoritative outlook. Krogstad and Storvik’s (2007) study terms the French leaders as heroic and the Norwegian leaders as anti-authoritative. In this study, they highlight the great French President Charles de Gaulle’s ideology of authority and charisma to lead people (p.219). Charisma to de Gaulle was in the grandness of leader’s ideas and actions, which should be used to make an emotional impact on people and to catch their fantasies. Hayward (1991) cites de Gaulle as the first French president who was able to unite personal leadership with stable democratic government. Norwegian ideology of charisma lies in anti-authority, a result of being ruled by other countries for hundreds of years; hence, this country is characterized by ‘ordinary people’s power,’ which imbibes qualities such as modesty, low-key appearance, and honouring others (Krogstad & Strovik, 2007; p.224-225). Norwegian charisma is neither heroic nor sensual, and is characterized by humility, humour, honesty and sincerity. These illustrations indicate that charisma as a personality is also shaped by the culture and society. The main traits of charismatic leaders, according to Bass (1990; p.26) are energy, self-confidence, determination, intellect, verbal skills, and strong ego ideals. Other traits of charismatic leadership include unconventional approach and exemplary performance. These leaders bring change through their unconventional thinking and actions; they are often the change agents. Charismatic leaders known till date have impressed large masses of people through their outstanding speaking, convincing and oratory qualities. The best quotable example is Abraham Lincoln. His conversational and public-speaking skills had a profound impact on individuals and large crowds. Lincoln consciously enhanced his oratory skills with every speech because he believed that this would help him persuade and influence people. These efforts to improve his persuasion and influencing skills helped him even after he became the President (Phillips, 2009). Considering the relationship perspective, it is clear that charismatic leaders focus on building positive relationships through portrayal of the right image or impression. As Bass (1990) points out, people are more likely to be drawn to the organisations that have charismatic leaders based on perceived images of a confident, successful, optimistic, and dynamic leader. Fiol, Harris and House (1999) propose that leaders displaying socialized charisma tend to employ specific strategies to change followers’ personal and social values. These strategies modify the intensity of people’s values, perceptions and status-quo, and fears of change. The next stages include strategies to foster innovation and new ways of thinking. The last stage is that of freezing the non-conventional attitude or approach and innovation, thereby mobilizing them towards intended action. Creation of image or social identity is an exceptional skill possessed by charismatic leaders. Charismatic leaders create large masses of followers by instilling trust and earning respect, devotion, loyalty, unquestioned obedience, commitment, and recognition from their followers. Coggins (2009) evaluation of the present US President Barack Obama’s leadership qualities identifies many qualities of charismatic leadership. The most certain qualities are evident from his oratory skills and personal charm. His strategies for active engagement and accessibility to the American people made him a popular leader in short span of time. These qualities and actions also suggest that charisma to be more of a trait that can be adopted by any leader with conscious efforts. Charismatic leaders create identity of their own as well as their group. They also empower their followers by increasing their social identification by emphasizing their collective identification and shared values (Seyranian & Bligh, 2008). In line with Daft and Lane’s (2007) description, Obama’s vision of change in America was impressively articulated in a manner that made all Americans believe that the future would be significantly better than the present. The way Obama communicated his ideas and goals in compelling ways made every one understand and relate to his vision. This inspired his supporters and drew others with a faith that helped him win the Presidential elections in the most unconventional manner. It is said that charismatic leaders’ power to influence is inherent and not acquired by virtue of position or authority. People tend to idolize such leaders and want to be like them. These perspectives of charismatic leaders are contrary to the idea of charisma as a trait. Daft and Lane (2007) have highlighted that charismatic leaders experience many threats to their individuality, their leadership as well as their mission. Firstly, charismatic leaders act or work without any regard for institutional restraints or support because their actions and decisions are subjective. Rather, they tend to take too much of personal risks, which can jeopardize their role as well as power in the long run. The relationship perspective puts forth that their charisma can fade once the situation passes. Moreover, these leaders face a constant threat from outsiders and rivals within the organisation or institution. Generally, charismatic leaders’ authority and indispensability are at stake when organisations make changes to their policies, structures or accountabilities towards standardization. In short term charisma eliminates all restraints, but in the long term it fails to create strong support which is a must for leadership to survive. Charismatic leaders breed problems with succession because it is very difficult to find another person with similar qualities. In conclusion, this evaluation of charisma as a personality or trait has highlighted numerous behaviours exhibited by charismatic leaders. To summarize, charismatic leaders are adept at articulating their vision in a manner that is appealing to all people. They are absolutely skillful in their verbal communication, which is reinforced by their personal charm and body language to some extent. Charismatic leaders have been found to be taking too much risk and make self sacrifice to any extent. These leaders have utmost confidence in their people and their actions. Their behaviour exemplifies their direction and their vision. These leaders consciously evaluate their image and relationship with their supporters and others because they strongly believe in relationships and followers’ perceptions. These leaders tend to build an identity of their own that eventually translates to their group or organisation’s identity. Charismatic leaders empower their followers in order to control and coordinate activities rather than people. An evaluation of charismatic leaders’ behaviours and achievements strongly reinforces the fact that charisma is more of a personality than a trait. Consideration of charisma as a trait can only be done to learn specific strategies, which may be adopted by people in leadership positions; however, these strategies can only provide direction but not similar outcomes or impact that the known charismatic leaders have had in the past. Moreover, replication or adoption of charismatic traits cannot be successful in long term as charismatic leaders survive with their perseverance rather than specific traits. Achieving such an impact also depends on other factors such as the person’s thought process, behaviour, attitude, commitment, and inner desire to achieve the vision. Hence, charisma is the persona that is inherent. References Bass, B.M. 1990. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organisational dynamics, 18 (3), 19-31. Available from, ftp://papers.econ.mpg.de/IMPRS/SumSchool2009/priv/Giessner/3%20charisma/Bass.pdf (Accessed April 28, 2011). Cameron, K.S and Lavine, M. 2006. Making the impossible possible: leading extraordinary performance--the Rocky Flats story. California: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Coggins, E. 2009. Five Leadership Theories Applied in Barack Obamas First 100 Days as President. Germany: GRIN Verlag. Daft, R L. and Lane, P.G. 2007. Leadership power and influence. In The leadership experience. 4th ed. Ohio: Cengage Learning. (pp:354-382). Shils, E. 1982. The constitution of society. London: University of Chicago Press. (pp:110-118). Eatwell, R. 2002. The Rebirth of Charisma? Concepts and Theories and the Problem of Operationalisation, Colloque. Available from, http://www.bath.ac.uk/eri/pdf/intas-eatwell.pdf (Accessed April 28, 2011) Fiol, M.C, Harris, D and House, R. 1999. Charismatic Leadership: Strategies for effecting social change. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(3), 449-482. Robbins, S.P, Judge, T.A and Sanghi S. 2010. Essentials Of Organisational Behaviour. 10th ed. India: Pearson Education Inc. Howell, J. M. 1988. Two faces of charisma: Socialized and personalized leadership in organisations. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organisational effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (pp: 213-236). Krogstad, A and Storvik, A. 2007. Seductive Heroes and Ordinary Human Beings: Charismatic Political leadership in France and Norway. Comparative social research. Vol. 23, pp:211-245. Available from http://www.samfunnsforskning.no/Publikasjoner/Bok-og-tidsskriftartikler/2007/2007-002 (Accessed April 27, 2011). Kim, S.H. 2004. Max Webers politics of civil society. New York: Cambridge University Press. (pp:75-83). Phillips, D. 2009. Lincoln on leadership. Illinois: Companion Books. Seyranian, V and Bligh, M.C. 2008. Presidential charismatic leadership: Exploring the rhetoric of social change. The leadership Quarterly. 19(1): 54-76. Available from, http://psychology.illinoisstate.edu/ktschne/psy376/PresLdship_Charisma.pdf (Accessed April 27, 2011) Weber, M and Eisenstadt, S.N. 1968. On Charisma and Institution Building. London: University of Chicago Press. Wilson, B.R. 1975. The noble savages: the primitive origins of charisma and its contemporary survival. Issue 5. Quantum Books. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Yammarino, F.J, Dionne, S and Uk Chun, J. 2002. Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: A levels-of-analysis review of theory, measurement, data analysis, and inferences. In Neider, L.L and Schriesheim, C’s (eds) Leadership: A volume in the research in management series. USA: Information Age Publishing Inc. (pp:23-64). Read More