1

Theoretical Foundations of Charismatic Leadership

Jay A. Conger

As was discussed in the Introduction, our theories of charismatic leadership in management are only now beginning to take shape. To use a management metaphor, we are in the start-up phase of the venture. The topic has actually suffered from a serious lack of attention. To put its neglect in perspective, we turn to Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership (Bass, 1981), which is considered the reference book on leadership studies. Combing through the more than 5,000 studies included in the handbook, only a dozen references to charismatic leadership are to be found. This is an ironic and disheartening discovery given the profound impact of charismatic leaders. As Kanungo and I suggest in the Introduction, much of this neglect can be traced to impressions of charisma as a vague and almost mystical phenomenon. Researchers have been reluctant to face some of the methodological dilemmas associated with studying this impressionistic form of leadership.

Nonetheless, a small but growing number of individuals have begun to explore this overlooked topic. Their efforts, to date, have been largely theoretical rather than empirical—a reflection of methodological barriers—and their orientation has been principally psychological rather than sociological—a reflection of their backgrounds as “micro” theorists of organizational behavior. Yet, as the chapters in this book will attest, they have begun the important process of theory building and are doing so within a range of perspectives. At the same time, it would appear that a critical mass of research interest has developed, and I suspect that within a few years our knowledge of charismatic leadership will be vastly deeper than and different from what it is today.

This chapter provides an overview of the development of theory up to the present. Particular attention is devoted to exploring the historical antecedents to our current theories. For while the chapters contained in this book suggest the formation of a new body of knowledge, it is important to acknowledge the profound influence of political scientists and sociologists from earlier decades. Starting with those of German sociologist Max Weber, it is possible to see how previous conceptualizations have influenced the ideas of current scholars. The chapter concludes with a review of works by organizational theorists.

Max Weber: Theory Builder

Max Weber ([1924] 1947) is the standard reference point for writers on the subject of charisma. He was the first theorist to actually use the term to describe a form of social authority. As such, his conceptualization of “charismatic authority” has had a significant influence on our notions of what a charismatic leader is and is not. It is important that we take a close look at his ideas.

Weber was particularly intrigued by the forces of authority in society. He developed a typology of three “ideal types”: the charismatic, the traditional, and the rational-legal. These ideal types were not concepts in the strict sense of the word but rather theoretical systems (much like the perfectly rational model of man). In other words, the attributes the ideal types describe were meant to be taken not as defining properties but rather as propositions and heuristics (Willner, 1984).

Weber distinguished these three types of authority along several dimensions. Charismatic authority, he postulated, derives its legitimacy not from rules, positions, or traditions but rather from a faith in the leader's exemplary character. The holder of charisma is “set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least … exceptional powers and qualities … [which] 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, [1924] 1947, pp. 358–359). Traditional authority, he explains, is based on “an established belief in the sanctity of immemorial traditions,” and rational-legal authority rests on the legality of rules—on the belief that “obedience is owed to the legally established impersonal order.” Weber further distinguished between the charismatic, the traditional, and the rational-legal in four fundamental ways:

Rank Versus Personal Authority: While traditional and rational-legal forms of authority are invested in a rank or office, Weber argued that charismatic authority is found in the personal qualities of an individual leader. Unlike traditional and rational-legal leaders, who are appointed or elected under existing traditions and rules (such as a king or a president), a charismatic leader is chosen by followers out of a belief that their leader is extraordinarily gifted. The charismatic's bases of power are therefore personal, whereas traditional and rational-legal leaders derive their power from positions, expertise, rewards, coercion, rules, and traditions (Etzioni, 1961; Schein, 1980). As Weber asserted: “The charismatic hero does not deduce his authority from codes and statutes …, nor does he deduce his authority from traditional custom or feudal vows of faith … [rather, the] charismatic leader gains and maintains authority solely by proving his strength in life. If he wants to be a prophet, he must perform miracles; if he wants to be a war lord, he must perform heroic deeds” (Eisenstadt, 1968, p. 22).

The Rational Revolution Versus the Heroic Revolution. In contrast to traditional authority, both the charismatic and the rational-legal forms have their origins in revolution. According to Weber, rational-legal authority is a revolution against the tyranny of tradition. It seeks to replace the power of ancient and sacred custom with the “rationality” of man-made rules. In other words, the royal family is replaced by the elected official. Obedience is then owed to decisions determined by regulations that are devised by humans but also changeable by humans (according to constitutional procedures, and so forth). This is in contrast to traditional rule, which follows custom and tradition and usually is said to derive from some divinity.

The charismatic revolution is perceived as a radical contrast to the pretentions of rulers to a “divine right of kings” or to abstract legal statutes (Eisenstadt, 1968, pp. 23–24). It is personified in the charismatic leader: “Charismatic domination means a rejection of all ties to any external order in favor of the exclusive glorification … of the prophet and hero. Hence, its attitude is revolutionary and transvalues everything; it makes a sovereign break with all traditional and rational norms: ‘It is written, but I say unto you’” (Eisenstadt, 1968, p. 24).

Thus, the charismatic revolution depends on beliefs in heroism and revelation. Through its emotional appeal, charismatic authority seeks to overturn an existing social order that is stagnant or in crisis. Its goals are to reorient the world to a more ideal and transcendent order. Its tools of revolution are the human mind and emotions. Such revolutions, Weber hypothesized, cannot arise from within existing institutional arrangements but rather must come from the “margins of society,” since they represent such a strong break with existing traditions or rational orders. And unlike the rational-legal revolution, which is a gradual process of disenchantment with the world, the charismatic revolution appears instantaneously.

Stable Versus Transitory. Weber reasoned that charismatic authority is essentially unstable and transitory, unlike the traditional and rational-legal forms. At best, the lifetime of charismatic authority coincides with the lifetime of the charismatic leader, while the other forms of authority may persist far longer than their founders—literally for centuries. As a revolutionary force, the purpose of charismatic authority is to bridge the transition from one existing order to the next. Its role is to create and institutionalize new orders. After accomplishing this goal, charisma fades or is routinized. Rules, traditions, and institutions grow up to stabilize and guide the new social arrangements and to replace the charismatic leader who either has departed through death or other circumstances or has given in to rule by tradition or bureaucracy.

Weber also argued that success and failure contribute to this transitory nature of charismatic authority. For example, in the process of establishing a new order, the charismatic's mission may meet with failure. Failure is a serious challenge to the charismatic's authority, since it reveals a less than superhuman character on the leader's part: “Above all … his divine mission must ‘prove’ itself in that those who faithfully surrender to him must fare well. If they do not fare well, he is obviously not the master sent by the gods. … It is then that his mission is extinguished…. The charismatic holder is deserted by his following, however, [only] because pure charisma does not know any ‘legitimacy’ other than that flowing from personal strength, that is, one which is constantly being proved” (Eisenstadt, 1968, p. 23).

Conversely, success confirms the powers of the leader and is therefore critical to sustaining charismatic authority. Long-term success, however, creates its own problems. For in achieving the mission's goals, there is often a desire to institutionalize the new order: “Usually the wish of the master himself and always that of his disciples … [is] to change charisma … from a once-and-for-all extremely transitory free gift of grace … into a permanent everyday possession” (Weber, [1924] 1947, p. 236). The turning point comes as followers begin to attain positions of authority and material advantage and as the wish to institutionalize these benefits grows. With institutionalization (or routinization), authority by charisma is replaced by rules and traditions, and the charismatic life cycle ends.

Charismatic authority, then, poses a fundamental paradox: The very forms of bureaucracy and tradition that it rises up against ultimately consume it. Its essential role is to spark revolution and, in turn, the creation of a new social order; as the new order shifts through stages of stability, order, and progress, it assumes the form of a traditional or rational-legal system.

Formal Versus Informal Organization. Weber stated that while both traditional and rational-legal authority are organized around permanent and formal structures, charismatic authority operates informally through human relationships. Since it embodies a formative and revolutionary structure, charismatic authority is unencumbered by the formalities and organizational arrangements of the previous order and even rebels against such forms: “In contrast to any kind of bureaucratic organization of offices, the charismatic structure knows nothing of a form or of an ordered procedure of appointment or dismissal. It knows no regulated ‘career,’ ‘advancement,’ ‘salary,’ or regulated and expert training of the holder of charisma and his aides. It knows no agency of control or appeal, or local bailiwicks or exclusive functional jurisdictions; nor does it embrace permanent institutions like our bureaucratic ‘departments’ which are independent of persons and purely personal charisma…. In this respect, it is sharply opposed both to rational, and particularly bureaucratic, authority and to traditional authority” (Eisenstadt, 1968, pp. 20, 51–52). Commitment, then, is to a powerful bond to the leader rather than to a set of rules or hierarchical bodies of authority that represent the status quo.

Using these distinguishing dimensions, Weber sought to capture and explain the forces of individual creativity and responsibility through the construct of charismatic authority. By emphasizing the extraordinary and mystical, he developed a concept of authority and social organization that was in direct contradiction to the logic of rational-legal and traditional systems. At the same time, Weber was concerned with understanding the creation, maintenance, and transformation of institutional arrangements. Intrigued by the forces that stabilized and ordered society and those that brought change and disorder, he sought to categorize the two into “traditional/rational-legal” on the one hand and “charismatic” on the other. He was careful, however, to ensure that the term be considered value free. As political scientist Thomas Dow, Jr. (1969, p. 316), notes: “Charismatic leaders may—at the least—involve their followers in a cruel hoax, or, as in Hitler's case, an epic tragedy … it is a moot point whether this new order will represent an ethical improvement over the ancient regime, the outcome of such episodes being as unpredictable as their occurrence.”

Implications of Weber's Theory

As political scientist Ann Ruth Willner (1984) points out, although Weber's major focus was on the transformation of charisma into other forms of authority, he did provide us with elements of its typical course: a condition under which it emerges (distress), a requirement for its maintenance (success), a probable outcome (institutionalization), and some of the means by which charismatic leaders exercise their authority (magical abilities, revelations of heroism, powers of mind and speech). Equally important, he created a category of leadership and authority that has been widely accepted as having significant validity as a heuristic.

From a managerial perspective, however, three assumptions made by Weber are at odds with organizational contexts. The first is that the charismatic leader is elected rather than imposed, the latter being the general case in most businesses. The second is his proposition that charismatic leaders arise from the margins of society, whereas business leaders generally emerge from within existing rational-legal institutions. Third, Weber stressed the anti-economic character of charismatic rule: “It [charisma] is immediately threatened in its innermost being when the economic interests of everyday life prevail” (Runciman, 1978, p. 235). Weber argued that charisma held contempt for all methodical forms of activity—especially economic activity, which was “the specific home of the patriarchal structure of domination and of the bureaucratic structure” (Runciman, 1978, p. 233). For Weber then, “charismatic business leaders” might appear to be a contradiction in terms. Yet he admitted the possibility of their existence, citing Henry Villard of Northern Pacific Railroad as a possible example: “Nevertheless, even here [the economy] there may be room for charisma” (Runciman, 1978, p. 233).

Thus, the implications of these assumptions for charismatic leaders in business have more to do with differences in the leaders' relationships with followers (on whom the leaders are more often imposed) and with their institutions (coming from within economic institutions) than with the types of relationships described by Weber. In the case of business leaders, it is presumed that the levels of devotion from their followers may be less extreme and the qualities of revolution, instability, and informality may not be of as great a magnitude or as powerful as Weber described.

In addition, Weber's hypotheses raise more research questions than they answer. Foremost is the issue of the locus of charismatic leadership. Because of Weber's sociological perspective and the resulting emphasis on social context and interaction, the issues of personal attributes and relational dynamics between leader and followers were largely overlooked. Questions surrounding the relationship of these different elements—the social context, the leader, and the followers—remained to be explored more scientifically.

Beyond Weber: Contributions from Political Science and Sociology

In the late 1940s, translations of Weber's original work on charismatic authority appeared in the United States. An entire decade passed, however, before American sociologists and political scientists began to explore his ideas on charismatic authority seriously. From these explorations, a principle area of debate arose around the question: Where is the locus of charisma—in leaders' extraordinary qualities, in the larger social context, or in the relationship with followers?

While popular interpretations of charisma link it directly to the leader's personality, political scientists Dow (1969) and Willner (1984) demonstrated that the search for a set of universal qualities common to charismatic political and religious leaders did not yield decisive results. Instead, variations in individual personalities were so great (compare Gandhi and Hitler, for example) that a single charismatic personality type seemed highly improbable (Willner, 1984, p. 14).

Some (Blau, 1963; Chinoy, 1961; Friedland, 1964; Wolpe, 1968) believed instead that the social and historical context is the critical determinant in the emergence of charismatic leadership. Chinoy (1961, p. 247), for example, argued: “No prophet (charismatic leader) can succeed unless the conditions are propitious. He succeeds when a political following exists because of the problems some people face. This importance of both the leader and the context … are suggested in the … Reformation, [when] Martin Luther found public opinion supersaturated with revolution; all that was needed to precipitate it was a pebble thrown in.” Others (Dow, 1969; Marcus, 1961; Willner, 1984) challenged these assertions, arguing instead that charisma resides within the personal attributes of the charismatic leader and in the relationship between the leader and his or her followers: “In short, we do not believe there is any usual or necessary context within which charisma naturally develops. The situation … may be relatively ordered, or it may involve … disorder. In either case, … such situations have not uniformly produced a revolutionary departure … and have as often resulted in noncharismatic as in charismatic solutions. Thus, any analysis which concentrates exclusively on the social context … risks misunderstanding the fundamental nature of the charismatic movement, [that is] the relative independence of both the exceptional individual and his ideas” (Dow, 1969, p. 309).

Much of the debate was resolved by the work of Willner (1984), who, using in-depth case studies, demonstrated that charismatic leadership is not the product of a turbulent environment. Willner concluded (1984, p. 46) from a review of six case studies of charismatic political leaders that “only two, Hitler and Roosevelt, seem to conform sufficiently closely to the preconditions of crisis and psychic distress specified in the conventional formula.” In the other cases, little or no relationship existed between contexts of turmoil and charismatic leadership. Willner argued instead that charisma is a relational and perceptual phenomenon and that the concept is most effectively defined in terms of an individual's perceptions of and responses to a leader: “It [is] not what the leader is but what people see the leader as that counts in generating the charismatic relationship” (1984, pp. 14–15). And because societies and groups differ in their dominant definitions of extraordinary qualities, the content of leadership images, projected and perceived, differs from group to group. It was therefore impossible, Willner contended, to construct a universal “charismatic personality.”

While a universal personality could not explain the phenomenon, Willner argued that individual personalities nonetheless play an important role, “for aspects of a leader's personality may partly determine his ability to project those images of himself that give rise to charismatic perceptions” (1984, p. 15). From her research, Willner identified four factors that, aided by individual personality, appear to be catalytic in the attribution of charisma to a leader: invocation of important cultural myths by the leader, performance of what are perceived as heroic or extraordinary feats, projection of attributes “with an uncanny or a powerful aura,” and outstanding rhetorical skills (1984, p. 61). Willner's research was pivotal in understanding charismatic leadership, for it narrowed the focus to the leader and to the relational/perceptual dynamics with followers. And while context retained the potential to influence these dynamics significantly, it was not the overriding causal factor or the necessary catalyst.

Beyond the issue of charisma's locus, debate also focused on Weber's assertion that charismatic authority could arise only from outside existing institutional arrangements. Among political scientists and sociologists, there was a general belief that charismatic authority could also emerge from within existing institutions. This assumption was confirmed by Peter L. Berger (1963), who drew upon historical evidence to demonstrate that certain charismatic leaders had appeared as revolutionary forces within existing institutions. The charismatic revolution was no longer assumed to come only from the fringes of society; it also could come from within existing institutions. Political scientists and sociologists then broadened the application of charisma to leaders who were already office holders in bureaucratic organizations.

As well, there was some debate as to whether charisma belonged to the secular as well as the spiritual. Originally a Greek word meaning “gift,” charisma was used by the early Christian church to describe gifts from God that enabled the receiver to perform extraordinary feats, such as prophecy and healing. Before Weber, the term was principally associated with such contexts.

Two political scientists, Karl Loewenstein (1966) and C.J. Friedrich (1961), argued against extending the concept beyond its religious antecedents. Loewenstein felt that the true forms of charismatic authority were not found in a modern world of technology and mass democracy but rather in the “pre-Cartesian” world—in cultures with a “magico-religious” or primitive ambiance. Only in societies “free of bureaucracy” and operating “on the level of myth” could charisma be found. To Loewenstein, Weber's true charismatic leader had been replaced by pseudocharismatics, who were master manipulators of modern mass communication (Willner, 1984, p. 12).

Friedrich (1961), however, traced his arguments back to Rudolph Sohm, a theologian who described the ecclesiastical organization of the Christian Church as based upon the distribution of God's gifts, or “charismata.” Friedrich stressed that Sohm's interpretation of charisma centered on a transcendental call by a divine being. Charismatic authority, Friedrich insisted, had to remain linked to this original meaning. Weber misused the term in that secular leaders rarely possessed or sought a foundation in the divine.

Loewenstein undermined his own argument by acknowledging the charisma of Napoleon, a post-Cartesian leader (Willner, 1984, p. 13). Further, his contention that myth and ritual belong exclusively to the world of religion was challenged. For while religion and politics have been historically tightly intertwined, the separation of politics from religion in modern times has not ensured its divorce from myth and ritual. Rather, as Willner points out, the decline of religious influence in the modern secular world may have augmented the impact of political myth and ritual (Willner, 1984, p. 13).

In addition, the argument that mass communication and technology can create a counterfeit charisma was also challenged. Citing Richard Nixon as an example, Willner (1984) demonstrated that even the media expertise and financial resources available to a political leader could not necessarily create an image of personal charisma. And if they had, would it make any difference? The effect would be the same; only the means to achieve that effect would be different (Willner, 1984, pp. 13–14).

In Friedrich's case, again, the division between secular and religious leadership is not as clear as he would have us believe. For example, rulers in the ancient past embodied both the sacred and the secular. The pharaohs of Egypt combined these roles as a manifestation of the divine and as administrators of the state. Only in recent times have church and state separated, and only in the United States is that separation a strict matter of law. To confine charisma to the sacred would appear unrealistic, since two of the phenomenon's essential qualities of an extraordinary bond between leader and followers and a revolutionary and transcendental mission are present in both secular and religious settings. Ultimately, however, the issue of whether charisma belonged to the secular or to the sacred never gained momentum and was resolved by the widespread acceptance by both sociologists and political scientists that the term could include secular as well as religious leaders.

Contributions from Organizational Behavior

Organizational theorists directed considerable attention to the study of leadership (Bass, 1981) yet showed surprisingly little interest in charismatic forms. Nor did they attempt to link existing theoretical paradigms (for example, task versus social orientations) to charismatic leaders. Stock taking of the organizational behavior literature reveals only seven conceptual schemes proposed specifically for organizational settings (Bass, 1985; Berlew, 1974; Conger and Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977; Katz and Kahn, 1978; Trice and Beyer, 1986; Zaleznik and Kets de Vries, 1975). In addition, empirical studies of charismatic (and/or transformational) leadership have been reported by Avolio and Bass (1985); Bass (1985); Bass, Waldman, Avolio, and Bebb (1987); Conger (1985); Hater and Bass (1986); House (1985); Howell (1985); Pereira (1987); Roberts (1984); Smith (1982); Trice and Beyer (1986); Waldman, Bass, and Einstein (1985); and Yukl and Van Fleet (1982). Some of these will be described in greater detail by Bass in Chapter Two and House, Woycke, and Fodor in Chapter Four.

Unlike the earlier political science and sociological literature, there is little disagreement in the literature over the locus of charismatic leadership: A relational basis is widely accepted. Charisma is believed not to reside solely in the leader and his or her personal attributes but rather in the interplay between the leader's attributes and the needs, beliefs, values, and perceptions of followers. Both Katz and Kahn (1978) and House and Baetz (1979) further postulate that the leader and followers must share basic beliefs and values in order to validate the leader's charisma.

As House, Woycke, and Fodor describe in Chapter Four, the charismatic (and/or transformational leadership) theories can be distinguished from more traditional theories of leadership along two important dimensions. First, whereas traditional theories take performance, satisfaction, and cognitions of subordinates as their dependent variables, charismatic theories generally take follower self-esteem, follower trust and confidence in the leader, follower motivation to perform beyond the call of duty, and follower emotional responses to work as their dependent variables. Second, while traditional leadership theories describe leaders in terms of social or task-oriented behavior, charismatic theories describe leaders in terms of articulating a vision and a mission, empowering followers, setting challenging expectations for followers, and creating positive and inspirational images in the minds of followers.

Unfortunately, systematic attempts at developing theories of charismatic leadership in organizations are rare. Many of the existing theories offer overlapping sets of attributes that provide pieces of the puzzle but lack comprehensive models to explain important underlying processes. Thus, there is considerable variation in the phenomenon's conceptualization. Equally important, there is limited empirical and comparative evidence to support conclusions, and explanations are based largely on theoretical speculation. As a result, the subject remains a largely unexplored topic in terms of organizational theory. Nonetheless, in order to understand the theoretical perspectives behind each of the chapters in this book, it is important that we examine the contributions of the principal organizational theorists up to this point. We can divide their work into three schools: the behavioral scientists, the institutionalists, and the psychoanalysts.

Behavioral Perspectives

The majority of charismatic leadership theorists fall into this category. As such, they have defined much of the research focus of the field. These theorists have been primarily concerned with identifying both a set of behaviors that distinguish charismatic leaders from noncharismatic leaders and a set of behavioral effects that distinguish followers of one form from the other. To a large extent, they have been influenced by the work of political scientist James MacGregor Burns (1978) and his concept of transformational leadership, as well as by psychologist David McClelland (1975) and his conception of leadership as an empowering process. There is some consensus among these theorists as to specific behaviors associated with charismatic leaders. These include vision or appealing ideological goals (see Bass, 1985; Berlew, 1974; Conger, 1985; Katz and Kahn, 1978; House, 1977; Zaleznik and Kets de Vries, 1975), behavior that instills confidence and empowers (see Bass, 1985; Berlew, 1974; House, 1977), and an ability to inspire or create inspirational activities (see Bass, 1985; Berlew, 1974; Conger, 1985; Zaleznik and Kets de Vries, 1975). In addition, there is also partial consensus on certain outcomes of charismatic leadership: heightened motivation of subordinates (Bass, 1985; Berlew, 1974; House, 1977), heightened performance of subordinates (Bass, 1985; Berlew, 1974; House, 1977), and increased confidence in the leader (Bass, 1985; Berlew, 1974; House, 1977).

Bass: Transformational Leadership. James MacGregor Burns, in his Pulitzer Prize–winning book, Leadership (1978), contrasted what he perceived to be the two essential forms of leadership: transactional (or exchange) and transformational (or charismatic). Under transactional leadership, followers behave in ways desired by their leaders in exchange for goods. The goods are usually specific, tangible, and calculable. The relationship lasts only as long as the needs of both leader and follower are satisfied by the continuing exchange. Thus, this is not a relationship that “binds leader and follower together in mutual and continuing pursuit of a higher purpose” (Burns, 1978, p. 20). In contrast, transformational leadership takes place “when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality” (Burns, 1978, p. 20). It is a relationship built upon the deeper needs and emotional desires of followers, as well as those of their leader.

Bernard M. Bass and his associate Bruce J. Avolio conducted several studies to see if Burns's concept of transformational leadership could be applied to complex organizations. In this research, Bass (1985) discovered that managers described by subordinates as transformational leaders can be distinguished along three behavioral dimensions. The first is charismatic leadership, which, after factor analyses, accounted for 66 percent of the response variance. This dimension describes subordinate faith in the leader, inspiration and encouragement experienced by subordinates, and the respect accorded to the leader. (In Chapter Two, Bass further expands the distinguishing characteristics of charismatic leaders.) The other two behavioral dimensions of transformational leaders are intellectual stimulation (6.3 percent of response variance) and individualized consideration (6.0 percent of response variance).

In another study, Avolio and Bass (1985) found that high-potential managers rated significantly higher on the three transformational leadership dimensions than did managers rated as having less potential. In addition, Avolio, Waldman, Einstein, and Bass (1985) tested the association between team performance in a management simulation game and post-game ratings of leaders. The higher-performance, higher-satisfaction teams were those that had leaders with higher transformational leadership ratings. As Avolio and Bass (1985) pointed out, however, the teams' successful performance may have led team members to erroneously attribute transformational qualities to their leaders.

Bass and Avolio essentially operationalized Burns's concept of transformational leadership for organizational settings. Their findings demonstrated some support for a normative model of leadership. That is, in Bass and Avolio's studies, leadership effectiveness was equated with the ability to arouse followers emotionally and to inspire them to greater effort and accomplishment.

While Bass and Avolio agreed that the most significant component of transformational leadership is charisma, they nonetheless believed that it cannot stand alone in terms of organizational effectiveness. They argued that “purely” charismatic leaders could fail to be transforming: “The purely charismatic may want followers to adopt the charismatic's world view and go no further; the transformational leader will attempt to instill in followers the ability to question not only established views but eventually those established by the leader” (Avolio and Bass, 1985, p. 14). This point of view is more fully explored by Bass in Chapter Two.

Berlew: A Contingency Theory of Needs and Charismatic Leadership. The first management theorist to discuss charismatic leadership in some detail was David E. Berlew (1974). He proposed a model of three stages of organizational leadership: custodial, managerial, and charismatic. The first two stages derive from task- versus people-oriented theories of leadership (Blake and Mouton, 1964; Hersey and Blanchard, 1977); custodial leaders are task oriented, as opposed to managerial leaders, who are people oriented. Charismatic leaders are an extension of the “people” orientation, with a pronounced emphasis on their ability to provide meaning and esteem for subordinates. Four specific activities or behaviors distinguish these leaders from custodial and managerial leaders: the development of a vision shared by organizational members, the creation of activities that have value or meaning for both organizational members and the organization, the development of a sense of personal confidence and control among organizational members, and behavior that empowers subordinates (for example, setting high expectations, rewarding rather than punishing, encouraging collaboration, helping only when asked, and creating success experiences).

In essence, Berlew's three stages describe a contingency model of leadership tied to differing levels of needs. Angry or resentful workers (stage 1), Berlew felt, are concerned with meeting basic needs for food, shelter, safety, security, and respect. A custodial form of leadership can satisfy these needs by improving working conditions, compensation, and fringe benefits. As conditions improve, however, workers increasingly become concerned with a sense of belonging and a desire to do satisfying work (stage 2). To resolve these needs, managers can provide work that is less routine and more challenging, build cohesive work teams, and allow employees greater say in decisions that directly affect them. Finally, after workers' needs for membership, achievement, and recognition have been met, they desire involvement in a more personally meaningful mission (stage 3)—“the feelings of potency that accompany ‘shaping’ rather than being shaped.” Only charismatic leaders, Berlew argued, with their sense of vision and empowering behavior, can address this set of needs (Berlew, 1974, p. 23).

While Berlew did not support his hypotheses with empirical evidence or, for that matter, describe them in substantive detail, he drew a link between charismatic leadership and human needs. He assumed that the influence process involves meeting the higher-order needs of followers. Through an interplay of these needs and the need-fulfilling actions of the leader, the relationship becomes the arena in which charismatic leadership takes place. As with Bass and Avolio, Berlew used dependent variables of follower motivation and confidence; in general, however, his theory of charismatic leadership is incomplete.

Conger and Kanungo: Behavioral Dimensions of Charismatic Leadership. In 1985, Jay A. Conger conducted a comparative field study of senior executives who were described as either charismatic and effective or noncharismatic and effective leaders. He discovered that the charismatic leaders could be differentiated from the noncharismatic according to a set of specific attributes. These include strategic vision, unconventional or countercultural management practices and tactics involving personal risk, articulation and impression management skills, and inspirational management practices. He postulated that these attributes are interrelated and as such form a constellation. Conger further theorized that the likelihood of attributing charisma to a leader increases (1) as the number of these components increases and (2) as the level of intensity or strength of individual components increases.

Building on Conger's research, Conger and Rabindra N. Kanungo (1987) presented a behavioral model that addressed the influence process involved in charismatic leadership. They argued that charismatic leadership should be viewed as another leadership dimension in addition to task, social, and participative dimensions. According to their model, the attribution of charisma to a leader depends specifically on four variables: a strategic vision shared by followers that is highly discrepant from the status quo yet within a latitude of acceptance; the leader's deployment of innovative, risky, and unconventional means to achieve the desired vision; a realistic assessment by the leader of environmental resources and constraints for bringing about the vision; and the use of articulation and impression management practices to inspire followers in pursuit of the vision. They also hypothesized that charismatic leaders influence their followers through their personal idiosyncratic power rather than through position power. And unlike consensual or directive leaders, who might also rely on personal power, charismatic leaders draw upon their idealized vision, their entrepreneurial advocacy for change, and their exemplary and unconventional expertise as the sources of their personal power. In Chapter Three, Conger and Kanungo further refine and elaborate on their model.

Katz and Kahn: Distance, Fit, and Vision. Though Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn (1978) proposed only a very general theory of charismatic leadership, their most intriguing insights centered on their concepts of “distance” and “membership fit.” They believed that social distance is an important variable for charismatic leadership in business settings (p. 546): “Immediate supervisors exist in the workaday world…. They are very human and very fallible, and immediate subordinates cannot build an aura of magic about them. Day-to-day intimacy destroys illusion. But the leader in the top echelons … is sufficiently distant from membership to make a simplified and magical image possible.” They also acknowledged the leader's need to “fit” his or her followers in certain readily perceptible dimensions to ensure bonding. He or she must share in the basic values and traits of his or her subordinates. Unfortunately, Katz and Kahn did not elaborate on this interesting insight or provide substantive examples.

Katz and Kahn did attempt to answer the larger question of how charismatic leaders are able to influence others. Rather simply, they argued that the ability to articulate or construct an emotionally meaningful vision or mission is the critical element of a leader's charisma. For Katz and Kahn, then, influence is largely dependent on the leader's appealing vision, while a relational fit along certain basic values and behavioral dimensions ensures acceptance by followers. Social distance intensifies the leader's image as a superhuman individual. Beyond these genera] conclusions, Katz and Kahn offered no significant details.

House: Charismatics Versus Noncharismatics. Drawing on the literature in psychology and political science, Robert J. House (1977) proposed a model of charismatic leadership that distinguishes between the behavioral and personality characteristics of charismatic leaders and those of noncharismatics. Charismatics, he argued, typically can be differentiated by their qualities of dominance, self-confidence, a need to influence, and a strong conviction in the moral righteousness of their beliefs. He also maintained that they are more likely to espouse appealing ideological goals and to engage in behaviors that create the impression of success and competence in followers and that arouse motives relevant to their mission's accomplishment.

In addition, his theory addressed the influence of charismatic leaders on subordinates' motivation. Unlike exchange theories of leadership (Evans, 1970; House, 1971; House and Mitchell, 1974), in which the effects of leaders on followers' expectancies and cognition are emphasized, House stressed that charismatic leaders have their greatest effect on the emotions and valences of followers (House, 1987, p. 14). Through emotionally appealing goals and behaviors that arouse followers' needs for achievement, affiliation, or power, charismatic leaders are able to motivate task accomplishment. In addition, House hypothesized that such leaders simultaneously communicate high performance expectations and confidence in their followers' ability to meet such expectations. These actions, in turn, enhance follower expectations that their efforts will lead to performance accomplishments (House, 1987, p. 15). House and his colleagues more fully discuss his position on charismatic leadership in Chapter Four.

Two studies—by Bryan Smith and Jane M. Howell—supported several of House's propositions. Using House's theory, Smith (1982) developed a set of eighteen constructs and thirty-eight individual scales to measure subordinate reactions to charismatic and noncharismatic leaders. Smith found that the followers of reputed effective and charismatic leaders are more self-assured, report more support from their leaders, see their leaders as more dynamic, experience their work as more meaningful, have higher performance ratings, and work longer hours than do followers of noncharismatic but effective leaders. However, as Trice and Beyer (1986) pointed out, certain of the effects—self-assurance of subordinates, back-up support, higher performance, and longer work weeks—could be relevant to any study of leadership and ultimately may not be discriminatory.

In a laboratory study that compared the effects of charismatic leader behavior on followers with those of task- or social-oriented leader behavior, Howell (1985) found that charismatic leader behavior has a more positive and stronger influence on the satisfaction, performance, and adjustment of subjects. Equally important, her study provided strong empirical support for the notion that charismatic leadership is a function of followers' perceptions and that it is possible to teach selected individuals behaviors characteristic of charismatic leaders (House, 1987, pp. 16–21). Howell's study is described in greater detail in Chapter Two.

Institutionalization Perspectives

The institutionalists were primarily concerned with the processes by which social changes introduced by a charismatic leader were formalized into more permanent institutional arrangements. For Weber ([1924] 1947), the routinization (or institutionalization) of charisma was a fundamental aspect of its life cycle. He argued that charisma either fades or becomes institutionalized with the accomplishment of the charismatic leader's mission. In the latter case, he commented: “If [charisma] is not to remain a purely transitory phenomenon, but to take on the character of a permanent relationship forming a stable community, it is necessary for the character of charismatic authority to be radically changed. … It cannot remain stable, but becomes either traditionalized or rationalized or both” (Weber, [1924] 1947, p. 364). Despite the importance Weber attached to this aspect of charisma, little empirical research has focused on the routinization process (see Clark, 1972; Kanter, 1972; Trice and Beyer, 1986). Clark (1972), for example, undertook a study of the histories of three distinct colleges, in which he examined the processes by which ideologies and “organizational sagas” of founding leaders were institutionalized. He discovered five “essential carrying mechanisms” (1970, p. 246) that ensured fulfillment of the organization's ideological roots. First was a core group of believers among powerful faculty who routinized the charisma of the leader in “collegial authority” (1972, p. 81). Second was a set of “unusual courses, note-worthy requirements, or special methods of teaching” that permitted program embodiment of the saga (1972, p. 181). Third was an outside set of believers, usually alumni, who provided a supporting social base. Fourth involved a student subculture that “steadily and dependably transfered the ideology from one generation to the other” (1972, p. 182). Fifth was saga imagery expressed by such means as catalogues, ceremonies, statues, and written histories. Through these five mechanisms the transmission and institutionalization of the founder's charisma and mission were ensured.

In addition, Kanter (1972) in a study of Utopian communities employed the term institutionalized awe to describe the process by which charisma was diffused throughout the organization. She found that charismatic awe was institutionalized through shared ideology, leadership, and power and that it provided an important mechanism for promoting member commitment to the community.

Among organizational theorists, however, Harrison M. Trice and Janice M. Beyer provided one of the more systematic analyses of charisma's routinization, and their work essentially represents the institutionalization perspective.

Trice and Beyer: The Routinization of Charisma. In a field study of two charismatic leaders, Trice and Beyer (1986) found that in one case charisma had routinized, and in the other it had not. Using data collected through participant observation, they concluded that five factors are largely responsible for successful institutionalization: (1) the development of an administrative apparatus apart from the charismatic leader that puts the leader's mission into practice; (2) the transfer of charisma through rites and ceremonies to other members of the organization; (3) the incorporation of the charismatic's message and mission into oral and written traditions; (4) the selection of a successor who resembles the charismatic founder and is committed to the founder's mission; and (5) a continued identification with and commitment to the charismatic's original mission. These factors were largely absent in the case in which routinization did not take place.

Trice and Beyer were helpful in expanding the focus of organizational theorists to consider the institutionalization processes behind charisma. They provided certain important insights into the mechanisms that ensure the successful routinization of charisma, and they drew attention to an aspect of charisma that has received little research attention.

Psychoanalytical Perspectives

In the study of charismatic political leaders, psychoanalytical theory has been applied widely (see, for example, Devereux, 1955; Hummel, 1975; and Schiffer 1973), especially in attempts to understand the psychological predispositions of followers. It has been hypothesized that conversion to a charismatic movement involves a regression on the followers' part to an infantile state: Extreme anxiety triggered by crisis, serious internal conflict, or a weakened sense of personal identity induces followers to regress and “demand a leader who conforms to infantile ideas of adult behavior” (Devereux, 1955, p. 150). Through a process of identification, the charismatic leader then becomes a powerful surrogate parent. However, as Willner (1984) notes, a lack of clinical studies makes such claims difficult to validate and generalize.

The first psychoanalysts to consider charismatic leadership in management settings were Zaleznik and Kets de Vries (1975). In contrast to political psychoanalysts who focused on followers, Zaleznik and Kets de Vries devoted their attention to the leader, his or her developmental history, and his or her disposition. Drawing upon William James's notion of the “twice-born” leader, they created a typology of leadership—the “maximum man” (or charismatic leader) and the “minimum man” (or consensus leader).

Zaleznik and Kets de Vries: The Inner Workings of Charismatic Man. For Abraham Zaleznik and Manfred F. R. Kets de Vries (1975), maximum man leads by charisma, minimum man by consensus. Maximum man is the creative institution builder, whereas minimum man represents the modern manager; “usually, the maximum men start great businesses but leave their future in the hands of minimum men, who function until crises occur” (Zaleznik and Kets de Vries, 1975, p. 237). In relationships with others, maximum man differs greatly from minimum man: “[Maximum man's relationship] is usually simple: He is their leader. At times he may be recognized practically on sight because of the glow of confidence his inner light gives him. He is charismatic; people are drawn to him by the power of his convictions and visions of reality. His presence inspires both dread and fascination; he evokes mystical reactions. The maximum man is a great innovator, but not always a good leader—he will have little use for subordinates who have different opinions—and his extremely high self-esteem may create problems…. The minimum man is concerned with the opinion of his peers. He would rather have egalitarian relations with men as brothers than be in the socially distant position of a father figure. He does not, therefore, lead public opinion, but follows it” (Zaleznik and Kets de Vries, 1975, pp. 237–241).

Zaleznik and Kets de Vries described the charismatic leader as a man of tremendous self-confidence and conviction. People are drawn to his strength and vision. The influence process rests on his captivating style of presentation, the power of his own self-image, and the grandiosity of his dreams. For followers, the maximum man assumes the quality of an idealized parent: “The ‘inner light’ of the charismatic leader [is] a kind of internal audience … with which maximum man has a continuous dialogue, … and one has the feeling, observing him, of watching a dramatization … as we listen to the charismatic leader we are on the inside and have lost the separation between self and other that characterizes rational thought. Intellect and emotion are no longer distinct. Somewhere within us, the images of parents as protectors and love objects come to the surface in a collapse of time, a merging of past and present…. Now the charismatic leader exerts his influence” (Zaleznik and Kets de Vries, 1975, p. 247).

Zaleznik and Kets de Vries took their analysis a step further by tracing the roots of charismatic personalities to an early childhood bond with one or both parents. They argued that charismatic leaders are the “chosen ones” in childhood; they are perceived as special, as favored. This attention leads to a strong sense of self-esteem that ultimately distinguishes these individuals from consensus leaders who lack such strong internal images of themselves: “As the lack of these images produces minimum man's dependence on others, so their strong presence in the maximum man diminishes his dependence, making him self-sufficient” (Zaleznik and Kets de Vries, 1975, p. 242). Out of these images, the charismatic leader develops a personality that is more creative, personal, and individual than that of a traditional manager. Organizationally, this strong sense of independence from others leads the charismatic leader to be an innovator, an institution builder.

For Zaleznik and Kets de Vries, the locus of charismatic leadership resides largely in the leader's personality. His or her personal qualities are the source of his or her influence, so his or her power is not dependent on outside forces. However, by implicitly highlighting transference as a critical element of the influence process, Zaleznik and Kets de Vries do imply an underlying relational dynamic. In Chapter Eight, Kets de Vries expands on the power and dynamics of transference and the dangers it presents for both the charismatic leader and his or her followership.

Conclusion

While this review provides a historical backdrop to our thinking on charismatic leadership, readers will discover that the next nine chapters attest to a significant deepening of our understanding of these leaders in management settings. More empirical evidence is beginning to appear and is giving new shape to existing theories. Ideas are being modified or deepened, such as in the study of strategic vision. Certain theorists are moving beyond simple formulations involving static attributes (which have characterized much of the existing research) to more complex theories explaining interrelationships and underlying processes. In addition, the negative consequences of charisma are being explored for the first time as is a growing awareness of contextual influences.

References

Avolio, B. J., and Bass, B. M. “Transformational Leadership, Charisma and Beyond.” Working paper, School of Management, State University of New York, Binghamton, 1985.

Avolio, B. J., Waldman, D. A., Einstein, W. O., and Bass, B. M. “Transformational Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness.” Unpublished manuscript, School of Management, State University of New York, Binghamton, 1985.

Bass, B. M. Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership. New York: Free Press, 1981.

Bass, B. M. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press, 1985.

Bass, B. M., Waldman, D. A., Avolio, B. J., and Bebb, M. “Transformational Leadership and the Falling Dominoes Effect.” Group and Organization Studies, 1987, 12 (1), 73–87.

Berger, P. L. “Charisma and Religious Innovation: The Social Location of the Israelite Prophecy.” American Sociological Review, 1963, 28, 940–950.

Berlew, D. E. “Leadership and Organizational Excitement.” California Management Review, 1974, 17 (2), 21–30.

Blake, R. R., and Mouton, J. S. The Managerial Grid. Houston, Tex.: Gulf, 1964.

Blau, P. “Critical Remarks on Weber's Theory of Authority.” American Political Science Review, 1963, 57 (2), 305–315.

Burns, J. M. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row, 1978.

Chinoy, E. Society. New York: Random House, 1961.

Clark, B. R. The Distinctive College: Antioch, Reed, and Swarthmore. Chicago: Aldine, 1970.

Clark, B. R. “The Organizational Saga in Higher Education.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 1972, 17, 178–184.

Conger, J. A. “Charismatic Leadership in Business: An Exploratory Study.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1985.

Conger, J. A., and Kanungo, R. N. “Towards a Behavioral Theory of Charismatic Leadership in Organizational Settings.” Academy of Management Review, 1987, 12, 637–647.

Devereux, G. “Charismatic Leadership and Crisis.” In W. Muensterberger and S. Axelrod (eds.), Psychoanalysis and the Social Sciences. New York: International University Press, 1955.

Dow, T. E., Jr. “The Theory of Charisma.” Sociological Quarterly, 1969, 10, 306–318.

Eisenstadt, S. N. (ed.). Max Weber: On Charisma and Institution Building. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968.

Etzioni, A. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. New York: Free Press, 1961.

Evans, M. G. “The Effects of Supervisory Behavior on the Path-Goal Relationship.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1970, 5, 277–298.

Friedland, W. H. “For a Sociological Concept of Charisma.” Social Forces, 1964, 43 (1), 18–26.

Friedrich, C.J. “Political Leadership and the Problem of the Charismatic Power,” The Journal of Politics, 1961, 23, 3–24.

Hater, J. J., and Bass, B. M. “Superiors' Evaluations and Subordinates' Perceptions of Transformational and Transactional Leadership.” Working paper, School of Management, State University of New York, Binghamton, 1986.

Hersey, P., and Blanchard, K. H. Management of Organizational Behavior. (4th ed.) Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977.

House, R.J. “A Path-Goal Theory of Leadership Effectiveness.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 1971, 16, 321–338.

House, R.J. “A 1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership.” In J. G. Hunt and L. L. Larson (eds.), Leadership: The Cutting Edge. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1977.

House, R. J. “Research Contrasting the Behavior and Effect of Reputed Charismatic Versus Reputed Noncharismatic Leaders.” Paper presented at annual meeting of the Administrative Science Association of Canada, Montreal, Apr. 1985.

House, R. J. “Führungs Theoriencharismatische Führung” [Exchange and Charismatic Theories of Leadership]. In A. Kaiser, G. Reber, and W. Wunderer (eds.), Handwörterbuch der Führung [Handbook of Leadership]. Stuttgart: C. E. Poeschel Verleg, 1987.

House, R. J., and Baetz, M. L. “Leadership: Some Empirical Generalizations and New Research Directions.” Research in Organizational Behavior, 1979, 1, 399–401.

House, R. J., and Mitchell, T. R. “Path-Goal Theory of Leadership.” Journal of Contemporary Business, 1974, 3 (4), 81–97.

House, R. J., and Singh, J. V. “Organizational Behavior: Some New Directions for I/O Psychology.” Annual Review of Psychology, 1987, 38, 669–718.

Howell, J. M. “A Laboratory Study of Charismatic Leadership.” Paper presented at annual meeting of the Academy of Management, San Diego, Calif., Aug. 1985.

Hummel, R. P. “Psychology of Charismatic Followers.” Psychological Reports, 1975, 37, 759–770.

Kanter, R. M. Commitment and Community. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972.

Katz, D., and Kahn, R. L. The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: Wiley, 1978.

Loewenstein, K. Max Weber's Political Ideas in the Perspective of Our Time. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1966.

McClelland, D. C. Power: The Inner Experience. New York: Irvington, 1975.

Marcus, J. T. “Transcendence and Charisma.” The Western Political Quarterly, 1961, 14, 236–241.

Pereira, D. F. Factors Associated with Transformational Leadership in an Indian Engineering Firm. Unpublished paper, Lawson & Toubro Ltd., Bombay, India, 1987.

Roberts, N. C. “Transforming Leadership: Sources, Process, Consequences.” Paper presented at annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Boston, Aug. 1984.

Runciman, W. G. (ed.). Weber: Selections in Translation. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1978.

Schein, E. Organizational Psychology. (3rd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1980.

Schiffer, I. Charisma: A Psychoanalytic Look at Mass Society. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1973.

Smith, B.J. “An Initial Test of a Theory of Charismatic Leadership Based on the Response of Subordinates.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Faculty of Management, University of Toronto, 1982.

Trice, H. M., and Beyer, J. M. “Charisma and Its Routinization in Two Social Movement Organizations.” Research in Organizational Behavior, 1986, 8, 113–164.

Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., and Einstein, W. O. “Effort, Performance, and Transformational Leadership in Industrial and Military Service.” Working paper no. 85–80. School of Management, State University of New York, Binghamton, 1985.

Weber, M. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. (A. M. Henderson and T. Parsons, trans.; T. Parsons, ed.) New York: Free Press, 1947. (Originally published 1924.)

Willner, A. R. The Spellbinders: Charismatic Political Leadership. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1984.

Wolpe, H. “A Critical Analysis of Some Aspects of Charisma.” Sociological Review, 1968, 6, 305–318.

Yukl, G. A., and Van Fleet, D. D. “Cross-Situational, Multi-Method Research on Military Leader Effectiveness.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1982, 30, 87–108.

Zaleznik, A., and Kets de Vries, M.F.R. Power and the Corporate Mind. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1975.