Chapter 7: Charismatic and Transformational Leadership Flashcards
Other politicians acknowledged as charismatic include:
wartime British Prime Minister Winston Churchill; American civil rights leader Martin Luther King; South African anti-apartheid leader Nelson Mandela; US President Barack Obama; First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon; and New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern
Charismatic effect
The ability to use language to stir emotion, to persuade and to mobilize people
Charismatic and transformative leadership are two theories that share a common theme in the leadership discourse:
they view leaders as individuals who inspire others through language to change. Charisma is that ‘something’ that differentiates Nelson Mandela from Jacob Zuma
Aristotle posited that persuasion is achieved using rhetorical means,
which include the speaker’s personal character (ethos), stirring the hearers’ emotion (pathos) and using reasoned argument (logos)
Aristotelian triad
Ethos, pathos, and logos
Charisma only emerges under certain situations
Most notably when an audience is available
You are not charismatic all the time!
This suggests that charisma is not simply a possession but a relationship,
Not something individuals ‘have’ but something that others perceive
The implication of these questions is that charisma, like beauty,
lies in the eye of the beholder.
Martin Luther King nor Barack Obama were born charismatic, though, at a later stage of their lives, exceptional qualities were subsequently ‘recognized’ by their followers
Charisma from this perspective appears not to be a psychological phenomenon but is a social construct (Grint, 2000) and whether charismatics are effective leaders depends, to some extent, on the context.
‘dark side’ of charisma
Charisma can be exploited for evil purposes
Example: Hitler
According to Weber, domination can be _______ and _______ (coercive)
legitimate
illegitimate
Weber (1921/1968) was primarily interested in legitimate forms of domination or power, or what he called ‘legitimate authority’
that allocates the right to leaders to command and the duty of subordinates to obey
The starting point for his theory is his classification of legitimate authority into three types:
1) Traditional authority
2) Rational-legal authority
3) Charismatic authority
1) Traditional authority
in which compliance is due to the sacred nature of the office. Historically, this was the most important form of domination but it has declined, along with monarchies.
2) Rational-legal authority
in which compliance is derived from the rationality of the authority. For example, people generally obey traffic laws because they appear to make sense, and not because police officers are charismatic or because they have some inherited authority.
3) Charismatic authority
in which obedience is attributed fundamentally to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual.
Weber definition of Charisma
A certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he [sic] is considered extraordinary and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or, at least, specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a ‘leader’
Weber provided four related elements of charisma:
(1) an individual of exceptional powers or qualities;
(2) a social crisis;
(3) a radical solution to the crisis offered by the individual;
(4) devoted followers.
‘pure’ or ‘strong’ charisma
Weber believed that charisma could not be analyzed along a continuum; people were charismatic or they were not
Weber is emphatic that charismatic power emerges as a quality conferred on a ‘supernatural’ leader only during periods of
‘extraordinary’ social crisis
At such ‘moments of distress’, the charismatic leader ‘seizes the task for which he [sic] is destined and demands that others obey and follow him by virtue of his mission
House’s theory of charisma (1977)
House’s reinterpretation of charisma identified the necessary persuasive competencies to influence people and, importantly, proposed that individual-deference predictors of charismatic leaders might be empirically quantifiable
According to House, charismatic leaders are those
organizational charisma’ (we call it ‘nurtured charisma’)
‘who by force of their personal abilities are capable of having profound and extra-ordinary effects on followers’
House and Shamir (1993)
Integrated charisma and theories of self-identity to explain how leaders engage followers
Sociologist Antony Giddens (1991: 52) writes that ‘self-identity
is not something that is just given … but something that has to be routinely created and sustained in the reflexive activities of the individual.’
House (1999: 564) suggested that charismatic leaders accomplish significant achievements through the efforts of followers who are
1) exceptionally loyal to the leader
2) have a high degree of trust in the leader
3) and are willing to make personal sacrifices in the interests of the leader’s vision and the collective
Conger and Kanungo (1998)
Charisma is an attributional phenomenon
The attribution of charisma qualities to a leader is through a three-stage behaviour process
The attribution of charisma qualities to a leader is through a three-stage behaviour process
First, charisma is more likely to be attributed to a leader who articulates an attainable vision that will inspire follower collective action to achieve objectives that are necessary in fulfilling the vision.
Second, a leader who creates an aura of confidence about the vision is more likely to be perceived as charismatic than a leader who demonstrates doubt and equivocation.
Third, charisma is more likely to be attributed to a leader who uses unconventional and novel strategies or practices to achieve the vision. This three-stage process is said to engender high trust in the leader and enhanced follower performance.
‘the crisis hypothesis’.
‘Only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change’
Two attributes are seen to be essential for charismatic leadership:
1) the leader must be determined, self-confident and emotionally expressive;
2) and their followers must want to identify with the leader as a person, whether they are or are not experiencing a crisis
Research evidence on the new models, on the other hand, found that charismatic and transformational leadership are positively associated
with a range of important individual (e.g. job satisfaction, motivation, commitment) and organizational (e.g. performance, innovation, change) outcomes.
Transactional leadership is primarily defined as
An exchange relationship in which leader and follower are engaged in some kind of agreement, whether economic (e.g. reward), social (e.g. group membership) or psychological (e.g. self-esteem).
Indeed, these transactional exchanges constitute the ‘psychological contract’ – the implicit contract between employer and employee – which remains rooted in such an exchange process.
‘transformational’ leadership is not an
exchange process at all
Thus, for Burns, all transformational leaders are charismatic, but not all charismatics are transformational
those who are not are likely to be charismatic ‘power-wielders’
At the centre of Bass’s model is the notion that
transformational leaders are able to inspire followers to transcend their self-interests for the good of the organization
In Bass and Riggio’s (2006) model, transformational leadership involves four essential behaviours:
1) Charisma or idealized effect:
2) Inspirational motivation:
3) Intellectual stimulation:
4) Individualized consideration:
1) Charisma or idealized effect:
the leader must share ethical values and behave in ways that allow her or him to serve as a role model for their followers;
2) Inspirational motivation:
a leader must have the capacity to inspire and elevate employees’ motivation with challenging work and persuasion, to arouse ‘team spirit’, and achieve extraordinary outcomes at individual, group and organization level;
3) Intellectual stimulation:
the leader must encourage her or his followers’ efforts to be creative thinkers and innovate by questioning assumptions, the status quo, reframing problems, and approaching ‘old ways of doing’ in new ways;
4) Individualized consideration:
the leader must have the personal capacity to perceive and understand the individual emotions of her or his followers, to demonstrate concern for individuals’ needs, to help each employee to develop her or his skills and to be able to handle human relationships.
In addition to the four behavioural elements of the leader, Bass and Riggio’s (2006) model includes two others:
1) contingent reward
2) management-by-exception (MBE)
The contingent reward component
is related to follower performance on what needs to be done, with rewards offered in exchange for satisfactory accomplishment of the work
This component, therefore, though important, has the primary and deleterious side-effect of establishing a transactional or instrumental relationship between leader and follower
2) management-by-exception (MBE)
consists of ‘active’ management-by-exception, in which leaders carefully monitor followers’ actions. In contrast, in the case of ‘passive’ management-by-exception, leaders only involve themselves when things go wrong so that their intervention is always associated with failure and admonishment.
Thus, Bass (1985, 1997) and Bass and Riggio’s (2006) model of transformational leadership includes both elements of
1) the ‘new leadership’ (i.e. charisma, inspiration, stimulation, consideration)
2) and elements of the ‘old leadership’ (i.e. reward for performance exchange).
(CIP) model of leadership
Charismatic, Ideological and Pragmatic
Upper-echelon charismatic leaders provide
a sense of identity, emphasize a sense of shared experience, and provide direction toward an organizational goal while also empowering followers to use their own discretion to accomplish the higher-order vision
‘Ideological leaders’
use past events to provide a common reference point for followers to facilitate sensemaking activities by limiting the uncertainty and anxiety associated with thinking about an unknown change.
The CIP model postulates that an effective leader is
a pragmatist, solving complex organizational problems
The Bass and Riggio model is probably the ‘most influential’ contemporary theory of leadership
but it has received criticism for its tendency to be US-centric.
Critiquing Charismatic and Transformational Leadership
Mainstream leadership studies have criticized transformational leadership for its lack of conceptual clarity. It treats leadership as a personality trait rather than a behaviour or competency that people can learn
Transformational leadership also reinforces the ‘heroic leader’ perspective because of its basic premise that it is the leader who inspires and mobilizes followers to do exceptional things.
Icarus paradox
refers to the phenomenon of a business failing after a period of apparent success, where this failure is brought about by the very elements that led to its success
