Charismatic Leadership Theory - Essay Example

Charismatic Leadership Theory Introduction While charismatic leadership theory constitutes one of the major leadership theories, there is a great degree of variety in what research identify as the core elements of this theory. It follows that a multi-perspective approach must be implemented in articulating the various aspects of this leadership model. This essay considers the predominant understanding of charismatic leadership theory and evaluates it for its strengths and weaknesses, compares and contrasts it with transformational leadership theory, and examines how charismatic leadership can be leveraged in today’s workplace. Charismatic Leadership Theory Charisma was first considered as a construct within a sociological context by the theorist Max Weber who considered it in relation to large scale change enacted by skilled and mystical individuals in times social crisis; this is notable as Weber’s initial characterization of this theory considered it as requiring both a special individual, as well as an external crisis situation for the core of the charismatic process to occur (Beyer & Browning, 1999), Later theories would emphasize less the external circumstances, as the charismatic traits of the leader and their followers. In terms of leadership, the theory was advanced by Conger and Kanungo (1987) who considered it in terms of a number of personality factors, including strategic vision and articulation, and sensitivity to environmental context. Since this precedent, charisma has been used and developed as a leadership theory in a variety of contexts. There are a variety of charismatic leadership theories, influenced by Weber’s original articulation of the concept, that incorporate psychological theories as key elements in the leadership model. One such theory was advanced by House (1977) who offered a particularly compelling commentary on the concept; House states, “the effects of charismatic leadership are more emotional than calculative in that the follower is inspired to enthusiastically give unquestioned obedience, loyalty, commitment, and devotion to the leader and to the cause that the leader represents” (House, pg. 6). For House, charismatic leadership constituted a process of exchange between a leader and a single individual; later charismatic leadership theories would extent this definition to include the effects of the leaders on groups of individuals, or even abstract entities such as organizational efficiency and or obtainment of objectives. Within this paradigm of the charismatic leadership model there exists a number of further articulations of the ‘charisma’ leadership construct. In these regards, there are a number of categories that attest to the actual interaction between the charismatic individual and the follower or group. One such categorical distinction is the theatrical approach. This approach argues that there are specific behavioral patterns that individuals can emulate or ‘act out’ that can be taught to individuals. Howell and Frost (1989, pg. 251) conducted a test with actors and determined some of the theatrical traits to include, “nonverbal cues such as extended eye contact, using vocal variety, speaking in a relaxed posture, and using animated facial expression.” Clearly, when compared to past theoretical constructions of the charismatic model, this approach makes a significant advance as it demonstrates that to some extent charismatic leadership qualities are not innate elements of personality, but to some extent can be studied, learned, and instituted in real world situations. In these regards, charismatic leadership theory further advances the theatrical model in terms of framing, scripting, and staging, and performing. Framing concerns the ability of the leader to reconstruct the social reality in terms that are inspiring or motivational to the group or individual. Scripting involves casting the scene or organizational goal in terms that inspire or motivate the group to participate in the constructed social reality that functions to improve employee motivation and organizational efficiency. Staging consists of a conscious ability of charismatic leaders to choose and create group situations or environments that promote their vision and organizational goals. Finally, performing represents the confluence and implementation of these theatrical elements; one might consider a manager speaking at a company meeting, or even a lawyer or professor partaking in the performative aspects of their profession. Ultimately, the theatrical approach breaks down the mystical aspects of charisma and articulates them into a theoretical model that attempts to objectively determine means of individuals to practice charismatic leadership. Strengths and Limitations The charismatic approach has a great many strengths. One of the most prevailing strength is that it is a leadership approach that seeks the voluntary support of the individual or group. One can better understand this when contrasted with the transactional model. In the transactional model the individual is motivated to contribute to the organizational goal solely out of a desire for a transactional reward, generally a salary. Conversely, the charismatic leader is able to motivate individuals to achieve group objectives through structuring the social reality in a way that the individual more willingly and wholeheartedly contributes to the organization. The ramifications of this aspect of the leadership model should be overwhelmingly clear when one considers the practical application of a motivated workforce. Namely, the charismatic model is able to more effectively engage the group’s creative faculties and energy for the simple fact that an individual who is inspired and motivated by a leader’s charismatic charm will more actively contribute to the organizational objectives and gain a personal sense of satisfaction from the company’s success. There are a variety of weaknesses and limitations to the charismatic leadership model. A number of researchers have noted that there is a manipulative aspect to the charismatic process (Freidrich, 1961; ‘Charismatic Leadership’ 2010). Consider the application of the charismatic leadership model in the political realm. History is replete with individuals who are capable of motivating large blocs of individuals to enthusiastically embrace their cause out of the emotional or visceral appeal of the charismatic leader. With great ease one would be able to apply the theatrical approach of charismatic leadership to the speeches given by Adolph Hitler preceding and during the National Socialist Party’s seizure of power in Germany. While there are an equal amount of individuals who have utilized their charismatic potential to enact positive social change, there is a sense that the individual followers of a charismatic leader have ceded a degree of rationality and reason to this individual’s emotional and visceral appeals. Compare and Contrasted with Transformational Leadership There are a great number of similarities between the transformational leadership model and the charismatic leadership model. When considering the transformational leadership model it’s important to note that is not entirely independent of traits associated with charismatic leadership, as in many instances it is necessary for the transformational leader to have a degree of charisma to institute change within their organization or workforce. It follows that in distinguishing between these two leadership models the dividing factor is in a sense a differing conceptual understanding: the charismatic leader is determined by traits relating to personality characteristics, whereas the transformational leader is determined by their philosophical approach to changing the workforce through a variety of means and approaches. Indeed, the charismatic leader may have no intention of changing the organization or their subordinates to any extent. This is not to say that the charismatic leader may not have transformational qualities. Consider an early articulation of charismatic leadership in the political realm, where Friedrich (1961, pg. 5) notes, “one of the effects of the charismatic leader is to cause followers to model their behavior, feelings, and cognitions.” While this appears as if Friedrich is writing as if the charismatic model and the transformational model are synonymous, it seems as if the contrasting element is that while the charismatic leader can enact transformation within their followers it is only as a side effect, and not their primary motivation. Researchers also note that in many regards the charismatic leader is not entirely concerned with others, and may be more concerned with them self. An example is given wherein a charismatic leader has an encounter with an individual; during the encounter the individual may feel entranced or enthralled with the charismatic leaders message and personality style, but when the encounter is over they may not be able to directly understanding what the message means, or even feel or particular personal connection with the leader ("Charismatic leadership," 2010). This can be contrasted with the transformational leader whose entire leader approach is based on their connection with the individual, as their entire motivation is to work towards transforming the individual to achieve greater workforce efficiency or progress towards a personal or organizational objective. It’s these elements that most clearly distinguish the charismatic leader from the transformational leader. Leveraged in Today’s Workplace As demonstrated, the charismatic leadership model is broad and diverse to the extent that it can be applied to virtually any organizational challenge that necessitates an objective outcome. It follows that the greater and more complex the organizational objective the more a charismatic leadership approach can be applied in improving the outcome. One example that can be applied to virtually any working environment is the ability of the charismatic leader to get individuals to give extra time or effort where a simple transactional approach would fall short. While in many work environments this simply amounts to working days that are not supposed to work or in positions that do not desire to work in, this ability can be leveraged even on higher organizational levels; for instance, a charismatic leader could potentially be more effective in gaining the support of a department in creatively collaborating in the development of a new advertising campaign. Conclusion As can be seen, the charismatic leadership theory encapsulates both the mystical and objectively determinable aspects of this leadership approach. Perhaps most notably, there is the theatrical approach that distinguishes means by which an individual can utilize charismatic leadership to achieve organizational goals. Even with the effectiveness of charismatic leadership, it is restrictive in the sense that it involves a latent sort of manipulation on the part of the charismatic leader. The charismatic approach remains a cornerstone element of contemporary leadership, and can be even utilized in conjunction with a transformational approach. Ultimately, the diversity of charismatic leadership is such that it can be leveraged in virtually any organizational scenario. Works Cited Beyer, J. M., & Browning, L. D. (1999). ‘Transforming an industry in crisis: Charisma, routinization, and supportive cultural leadership.’ Leadership Quarterly, 10, 483- 520. Charismatic leadership. (2010). Retrieved from http://changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/styles/charismatic_leadership.htm Conger J.A., Kanungo R.N. “Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings.” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12 (1987): 637-647. Friedrich, Carl. Political leadership and the problem of the charismatic power. The Journal of Politics, 1961, 21, 3-24. House, R. J. 1977. A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt.Sc L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge: 189-207. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Howell, J. M., & Frost, P. J. 1989. A laboratory study of charismatic leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 43: 243-269. Read More