8

Origins of Charisma: Ties That Bind the Leader and the Led

Manfred F. R. Kets de Vries

The concept of charisma not only has fascinated sociologists, political scientists, historians, psychologists, and organizational theorists, but it has also captured the imagination of the popular press. It has become a household word. Yet, notwithstanding the existence of a literature on the topic, remarkably little insight has been shed on the psychological origins of charisma. The question of what psychological forces make for the mysterious, almost mystical, bind between leader and led has been largely left unanswered.

Etymologically, charisma means a gift of grace, being favored by the gods. Church historian Rudolf Sohm (1892) used this term for the first time, although in the context of religious transformations. As Conger and Bass have pointed out, it was the sociologist Max Weber ([1924] 1947) who popularized and broadened the concept to describe qualities of a leader “by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities.” According to Weber, these powers or qualities 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” (pp. 358–359).

Unfortunately, in widening the scope of charisma, Weber did not really solve the mystery of the strange bond between leader and led. His analysis of charismatic authority remained largely at a descriptive level. He glossed over the concept and emphasized more traditional and rational or legal authority.

What Weber did say, however, is that charismatic individuals differ in their capacity to inspire personal loyalty apart from the authority derived from an office or status. Charismatic leadership is extraordinary; it is a gift of grace possessed mainly by prophets or religiously inspired reformers. Such leaders are regarded with a sense of awe and mystery and are expected to perform heroic deeds. Thus, charismatic leadership has a salvationistic or messianic quality. Charisma becomes “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” (Shils, 1968, p. 386). Furthermore, charismatic leaders are products of their times. They seem to emerge particularly during periods of uncertainty and unpredictability—in short, at crisis points in history. At the same time, they, in turn, succeed in influencing the events that helped them rise to power. According to Weber, charismatic leaders become prominent in times of psychic, physical, economic, ethical, religious, or political distress. In stable, well-functioning societies, there is less need for the services of such individuals.

To some extent, it might appear that charismatic leadership is a function of the need for order. Yet, paradoxically, in providing “deliverance,” truly charismatic leadership tends to be revolutionary in that it may conflict with the established order. But charismatic leaders resolve this dilemma by creating order out of disorder: They provide their followers with new systems of coherence, continuity, and justice. It appears that charismatic leaders are very skilled in channelling grievances and diverging interests into a common goal; they provide a focus for others. And, by behaving in this way, they become creators of meaning. Thus, charismatic leaders “offer salvation in the form of safety, or identity, or rituals, or some combination of these” (Tucker, 1968, p. 740). But this search for renewal has limits, since “the pure charismatic hero bases his prophecy on values that have been central to the past; those values, in order to be radical or revolutionary, must be deviant or at least not central to ongoing established institutions” (Bensman and Givant, 1975, p. 584).

When we study the life histories of truly heroic charismatic leaders, we find that they seem to have gone through a difficult period of gestation before coming to power. During this period—which may be a real or an imaginatively reconstructed portrait of their personal history—the themes of ordeal and adversity, so common in myths, come to the fore. It appears that such leaders may create a “family romance,” a kind of fairy tale, which narrates in great detail how after many adversities the real origin of the pure, poor, persecuted prospective leader is finally discovered. As with a mythical hero, the prospective charismatic leader may paint a picture of having been subjected to certain rites of passage—trials, if you will—to prepare him or her for the formidable tasks at hand. Thus, in the behavior and actions of mythical heroes and charismatic leaders we can find many parallels.

Although Weber may have been aware that certain—not necessarily conscious—forces are at work, he did not have the advantage of psychoanalytical insights to help him understand the deeper structures that influence behavior and action (Geertz, 1973, 1983; Kets de Vries and Miller, forthcoming). Furthermore, his view on what charisma really is and when it applies may have been too limited. In fact, what is called charisma can be considered part of a more widely spread phenomenon. Even quite ordinary people who find themselves in a position of leadership cannot escape it. Thus, journalists may have a point in using a rather loose definition of charisma, applying it to any leader with popular appeal. Charismatic elements are present in all forms of leadership and derive from a complex psychological interaction process between leaders and followers. To further explain this complex process, a psychoanalytical approach to the origin and limits of charisma is offered in this chapter. I explore and identify some of the psychological forces that affect both leaders and followers and suggest possible conditions under which charisma may or may not manifest. I also examine the potential negative effects that charismatic leadership may have on both the leader and the led.

Taking Advantage of the “Historical Moment”

For leaders to be effective, some kind of congruence is needed between their own and societal concerns. What gives truly effective leaders such conviction and power is their ability to articulate the underlying issues of a society. In trying to resolve their own personal struggles, they manage to project them onto their involvement in and solution of the problems of society at large. What seems to happen is that a leader's vision becomes the concern of all. According to Erikson (1958, 1969), using such dramatic examples as Martin Luther and Mahatma Gandhi, such leaders transform their own personal struggles into universally shared concerns, trying to solve for all what they originally could not solve for themselves; internal, private dialogues are transformed into external public concerns.

This identification of the connection between a public and a private crisis was noted by the political scientist Harold Lasswell in his seminal work, Psychopathology and Politics (1960). According to Lasswell, the distinctive mark of the homo politicus is the displacement of private motives onto public objects and, at the same time, the rationalization of these motives in terms of the public interest. Intrapsychic conflicts are acted out on the public stage. The effectiveness of this process of externalization, however, depends on “the leader's ability to draw upon and manipulate the body of myth in a given culture and the actions and values associated with these myths to legitimize his claims by associating with himself the sacred symbols of the culture” (Willner and Willner, 1965, p. 77; Willner, 1984).

Thus, collective symbols are made proxy for self-symbols (Lasswell, 1960, p. 186). Part of the leadership phenomenon, therefore, seems to be a myth making process whereby the leader's role in the myth is to make sense by creating continuity between past, present, and future. Charismatics facilitate the transformation of a historical or mythical ideal from a remote abstraction into an immediate psychological reality (Zaleznik and Kets de Vries, 1985). Thus, one aspect of leadership seems to be “‘cultural management,’ in part conscious and deliberate, in part probably unconscious and intuitive” (Willner and Willner, 1965, p. 83). Speeches, ceremonies, and rituals are some of the vehicles that make this a successful process. To quote Marshall McLuhan, “the medium becomes the message.”

Because of the effects of the mass media on contemporary leadership, the term pseudocharisma has been introduced (Bensman and Givant, 1975, p. 602). We can observe today the manipulation of propaganda techniques and the use of opinion polls to create an image of leadership: “The procedures employed are no different from those used in the creation of movie, theatrical, or television plays” (Bensman and Givant, 1975, p. 606). And, when the polls do not oblige and support the leaders' ideas, they can always resort to such rationalization devices as “the silent majority” to give their actions credibility and create support, even if imaginary.

Playing an important role in making people susceptible to manipulation, contributing thereby to the presence of charisma, is the process of projection. A leader is legitimized by the perceptions of his or her followers. Projective processes seem to play a major role in the myth making and symbolic action that form these perceptions. Propelled by the ambiguity and complexity of the events around us, we choose leaders to make order out of chaos. Leaders become the ideal outlets for assuming responsibility for otherwise inexplicable phenomena. Ascribing power to leaders becomes our way of dealing with helplessness. Thus, it seems that even if no one with leadership abilities were available, we would have to create such a person. The mere presence of an individual willing to take on the leadership role facilitates the organization of experience and in doing so helps us acquire a sense of control over our environment—even if this is only illusory (Meindl, Ehrlich, and Dukerich, 1985).

Through these attributional, projective processes, leaders become the recipients (“container”) of other people's ideals, wishes, desires, and fantasies (Bion, 1959). They become imbued with mystical, charismatic qualities, whether they possess them or not. And, in accepting this role, they may turn into master illusionists, keeping those fantasies alive and conjuring up images of hope and salvation that may replace reality. Naturally, in this attributional process of projecting themes of one's own inner world onto the leader, role expectations by the followers of appropriate leader behavior—or what can be called the rules of the game—will have a boundary effect as to what is permissible. In one way or another, leaders are expected to recognize these boundaries, making them an essential factor in guiding their behavior.

As I mentioned before, these attributional-projective mechanisms occur particularly in times of distress. Anomie, upheaval, and crisis make for a sense of helplessness and may give rise to forms of collective regression. We should remember, however, that not only do leaders induce regression in others, but they also can fall victim to it themselves.

When followers fall victim to regression, they may revert to primitive patterns of behavior, demonstrating quite clearly how easily archaic psychological processes can emerge and affect action. Freud described what can happen when people get together in groups in this way: “All their individual inhibitions fall away and all the cruel, brutal and destructive instincts, which lie dormant in individuals as relics of a more primitive epoch, are stirred up to find gratification” (Freud, 1921, p. 70).

The Influence of Transference

According to Freud (1921), the appeal of leaders is that at a symbolic, unconscious level they represent the return of the primal father. What seems to happen psychologically is that, in fantasy, the followers replace their own ego ideal—the vehicle by which they measure themselves—with their unconscious version of the leader's ego ideal. When this occurs, the leader facilitates a reconciliation between the two agencies of the mind, the ego—the mental structure that mediates between the person and reality—and the ego ideal. Reconciliation between these two agencies reduces tension and thus can lead to a sense of euphoria. When this happens, all the followers' exaggerated wishes will be projected onto the leader. With their own demands and prohibitions dissipated and transferred to the leader, they feel a sense of community. The leader becomes the conscience of the group. The followers no longer feel harassed by prohibitions; they have no more pangs of conscience. A group ego ideal comes into being that serves all, and with it comes an abdication of personal responsibility. Followers now identify not only with the leader but also with each other in that they share a common outlet of identification. Freud noted: “We know that in the mass of mankind there is a powerful need for an authority who can be admired, before whom one bows down, by whom one is ruled and perhaps even ill-treated … that all the characteristics with which we equipped the great man are paternal characteristics …. The decisiveness of thought, the strength of will, the energy of action are part of the picture of a father … but above all the autonomy and independence of the great man, his divine unconcern, which may grow into ruthlessness. One must admire him, one must trust him, but one cannot avoid being afraid of him too” (1939, pp. 109–110).

Freud compared the bond between leader and followers to the act of falling in love or the state of trance between hypnotist and subject. When this identification process occurs, followers may indulge in an “orgy” of simple and strong emotions and may be swept along by the leader's appeal. Although Freud does not discuss this explicitly, at the heart of this psychological process is a dynamic called transference. Leaders facilitate transference reactions. They are ideal outlets for the crystallization of primitive and unstable identifications.

Transference is a universal phenomenon. It can be described as some kind of “false connection” (Breuer and Freud, 1893–1895), a confusion in time and place. Individuals perceive others and respond to them as they would have reacted to important figures in their past. Attitudes from early family life repeat themselves in the present. It can be said that every longstanding interpersonal relationship is in some ways a new edition of an old alliance. In many ways, individuals transfer what they experienced in relationships of the past onto those of the present (Greenson, 1967; Langs, 1976).

Transference is the basis for all enduring human relationships. But it is also a major source of distortion. Instead of remembering relationships of the past and adapting this knowledge to build better current relationships, individuals often misunderstand the present in terms of their past. They relive the past in current actions, repeating the same mistakes. In an effort to cope with their early conflict-ridden relationships, they may fall back upon older, stereotyped behavior patterns. Unconsciously, they may try to relive bygone relationships in a way that lays them to rest, that resolves their own inadequacy. This revives irrational, archaic structures of personality, causing behavior that is overreactive, underreactive, or bizarre. The careful observer may notice that the person in question responds to others as if they were mother, father, sibling, or some other important figure from the past.

As authority figures, leaders are prime outlets for these types of emotional reactions. Leaders easily revive previously unresolved conflicts with significant figures from the past. In these situations, regressive behavior may occur: Followers may endow their leaders with the same magic powers and omniscience they attributed in childhood to parents or other significant figures. Moreover, transference reactions can be acted out in different ways and may affect both leaders and followers. Conceptually, we can distinguish three types: idealizing, mirror, and persecutory reactions (Kets de Vries and Miller, 1984).

In the type of transference called idealization, subordinates may begin to idolize their leaders, to ascribe ideal and thoroughly unrealistic qualities to them. This can be seen as an attempt to revive an earlier phase of life, when parents were looked upon as all-powerful and perfect. In such situations, a strong wish persists to recapture this original state of bliss through union with the person perceived as omnipotent (Kohut, 1971; Kohut and Wolf, 1978). This childhood illusion is not easily given up. Fantasies linger on about the powers of the early caretakers. Although at one level of consciousness they know that it cannot be, some people prefer to pursue this make-believe throughout life. Doing so helps maintain the fantasy that some of the qualities of the admired person will be acquired. Having a relationship with others whom they can admire makes those who behave in this way feel better. Projecting one' s own opinions and values onto others and identifying with them becomes a way of affirming one's own existence and can enhance self-esteem.

As authority figures, leaders reactivate lingering dependency needs and often act in such a way as to help create and maintain these illusions. Thus, one facet of the leadership function is the leader as magician—the master illusionist. In a magical way, the leader seems to become a “go-between”—the person able to reinstate for followers the illusion of absolute self-sufficiency and lost perfection. And, when drawn in, followers may seem intoxicated, behaving like sleepwalkers. They may have so much invested in an unreal image of their leader that they are blinded to the leader' s faults.

Particularly during periods of upheaval, this search for “paradise lost” comes to the fore. At such times, followers experience increased dependency needs. They may feel lost and torn in different directions, and they may even experience a sense of loss of identity. A leader can reverse this process of identity confusion by providing a focus. By responding to and accommodating their needs for identity, security, and protection, the leader may develop followers who will do anything in the form of appeal, support, or ingratiation. They will please and charm the leader; they will give in to any whim or fancy. This type of behavior, however, puts great pressure on the leader to come through. And, unfortunately, no matter what he or she does, the leader will never be able to satisfy the followers completely.

In the case of mirror transference, we are dealing with the other side of the coin. This involves individuals' love of self-display—their desire to get attention from others. And although this inclination tends to be universal, leaders are more susceptible to it than most people. It is very hard to imagine, unless one has had the experience, what it means to be the object of excessive admiration by followers—even in instances in which some of it may be warranted. The leader' s display of narcissism reverberates in the followers; followers recognize themselves in the leader.

Some leaders, in being exposed to a great deal of attention, eventually may find it hard to maintain a firm grasp on reality and thus distinguish fact from fantasy. Too much admiration can have dire consequences for the leader's mind: He or she eventually may believe it all to be true—that he or she really is as perfect, as intelligent, or as powerful as others think is the case—and act accordingly. Moreover, this belief may be intensified by the fact that leaders have something going for them that ordinary mortals don' t have: They frequently have the power to turn some of their fantasies into reality. If this happens, we may see the beginning of a self-propelled cycle of grandiosity.

Of course, also bringing such wishes to the fore is the fact that at the base of mirror transference is an archaic memory of grandiose omnipotence—the remembrance of when the individual, as a child, wanted to display his or her evolving capabilities and be admired for them. In order for leaders to experience their “grandiose sense of self,” they need others to provide “nourishment” through confirming and admiring responses (Kohut, 1971; Kohut and Wolf, 1978).

Often, however, this strong need to display oneself represents an attempt to counteract a sense of worthlessness and a lack of self-esteem. At a deeper level, such individuals view those with whom they interact as the parents who were never empathetic enough, who never had much patience or were uninterested in their children. These individuals are still searching for mirroring parents; they crave constant attention and admiration. Unfortunately, their own overwhelming needs make them unable to have empathy for others. It is “their turn” now, and they surround themselves with obsequious yes-men who are willing to provide accolades and worship on a regular basis.

Mirror transferences, then, become complementary to idealizing transference reactions—the former being the desire to be applauded, admired, and revered; the latter the propensity to comply with that desire. Thus, idealizing and mirror transference reactions mutually reinforce each other, enhancing the leader's narcissism. Of course, the distinction between mirror and idealizing reactions is only a conceptual one. In practice, these processes occur simultaneously.

If leaders fall victim to these regressive forces, they may become preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success and power. They may constantly search for attention and may wish to demonstrate their mastery and brilliance. Encouraged by their subordinates, they may take on overly ambitious projects and engage in unrealistic actions. Because of their desire for grandiosity, they tend to gravitate toward subordinates with high dependency needs, people in search of an all-knowledgeable, all-powerful, and care-giving leader. But the followers may be in for a shock. Preoccupied with grandiosity and having become intolerant of criticism, such leaders can become callous about the needs of their subordinates. They may exploit them and then drop them when their followers no longer serve their purposes.

Given the likely enhancement of narcissistic tendencies in leaders, blaming them for callous behavior may be a realistic complaint. It is another matter altogether, however, for the followers to blame the leader for failing to live up to their own exaggerated expectations. This, unfortunately, is what tends to happen. No leader can really sustain the primitive idealization of the followers; no one can be a perfectly gratifying object. There are always going to be frustrating experiences. The outcome of not meeting the “tacit promise” is predictable. We should not forget that rebellious hatred is the counterpart of idealization. Angry about the frustration of their dependency needs, and perhaps aggravated by callous, exploitative behavior, subordinates eventually may react by vengefully devaluating their leaders. Highly dissatisfied, they may engage in hostile, rebellious acts. Thus, not only is the leader the recipient of praise and admiration, but he or she may be the target of a considerable dose of overt and covert aggression.

The probability that aggressive feelings will emerge is facilitated by early developmental experiences. Even in the early years, a child's parents or caretakers cannot always be completely satisfying. At times, they may not be available, which may cause frustration. This results in childhood anger directed at the caretakers. However, for fear of losing those who are the main source of satisfaction (combined, perhaps, with the belief in the mythical world of the young child that angry feelings can kill), a switch occurs: These feelings are split off and directed toward others. The child reasons that the “good object” didn' t do it, so “others” are to blame; they are the ones responsible, causing it to happen (Klein, 1948; Kernberg, 1976, 1985; Mahler, Pine, and Bergman, 1975).

Studies of human development indicate that this primitive way of dealing with the stresses and strains of life is not limited to childhood. Some people easily revive this way of behaving in adulthood. People who are so inclined will divide, in an overly simplified way, all experiences, perceptions, and feelings into unambiguously “good” and “bad” categories. Of course, in doing so they ignore the complexity and ambiguity inherent in all human relationships; instead, they rely on simple, strong, polarized feelings between unbridled hatred, fear, and aggression on the one hand and overidealization on the other. Such people refuse to accept that the same person can have both “good” and “bad” qualities.

When this psychological process occurs, we see how attitudes of idealization can quickly change into devaluation when people feel that their needs are not being met. Followers are fickle; they can easily change their minds. There seems to be no middle road. Thus, subordinates will unload their anger onto their leaders, who, for their part, may not be able to “contain” this anger and therefore counterreact. Hence, given the pressures placed upon them, leaders may feel persecuted. Unable to control their aggressive feelings, they look for victims and retaliate. They themselves will “split” the world into those who are with them and those who are against them. If they take this route, it will make for a delusory world filled with saints, heroes, victims, and scapegoats. No wonder paranoia is considered one of the major “diseases” of leadership.

Projection and projective identification are defense mechanisms that accompany splitting (Ogden, 1982). These defense mechanisms help ward off persecution by “bad” objects. What seems to happen is that unwanted aspects of the self are externalized and attributed to (projected onto) others. People who act in this way never experience a sense of personal responsibility but always blame someone or something else.

In the context of these three interdependent transference reactions, it is interesting to note a not uncommon defense called “identification with the aggressor” (Freud, 1936; Kets de Vries, 1980). This defense mechanism explains why followers continue to be attracted to leaders in spite of their abhorrence, at another level, of the leaders' violent acts. At the core of it all is the followers' illusion—which they cling to as a way of overcoming their own fears—that through identification they can incorporate aspects of the perceived omnipotence of the leader.

The followers' unconscious wish behind this “merger” is that they will become as powerful as the aggressor. Hence, an illusory transformation occurs whereby instead of being the helpless victim the follower convinces him- or herself that he or she is in control. Thus, followers may behave as insensitively toward “outsiders” as their leaders do, having appropriated the latters' particular symbols of power. Meanwhile, their feelings toward their leaders will alternate between love, affection, and fear. Naturally, followers who adopt this defense mechanism share the outlooks of their leaders and support them even if the leaders engage in unrealistic, grandiose schemes or imagine the existence of malicious plots, sabotage, and enemies.

Conclusion

Charisma loses some of its mystery when we understand the influence of transferential processes. Transference, which, according to Jung, is the alpha and omega of clinical treatment (Storr, 1979), is also the key to understanding what otherwise would remain a puzzling phenomenon. We have seen how transferential processes can exert an enormous regressive pull—in the process blurring the boundaries between reality and fantasy. It is this potential for distortion that is the corrupting power of charisma. The limits of charisma are broken when we no longer can distinguish fact from fantasy, when reality testing becomes suspended. If that is the case, we may be swept away by these human dynamics. So we begin to understand some of the potential problems and dangers that charismatic leadership can present—that it has a potentially negative side as well as a positive one.

Paradoxically, although these same regressive forces may give rise to irrational, even pathological behavior—in normal circumstances, a cause of deep concern—in specific situations these may be exactly the kinds of qualities needed for effective leadership. The leader's unique vision, the unrestrained abandonment to achieving a certain aim, distorted as it may be—his or her way of managing aggression may be very functional, as it can break an existing state of inertia. In the process, powerful forces will come to the fore, which, if not closely monitored, may eventually run out of control. And remembering that leaders can wield enormous power and that their actions can have a fateful effect on many, that prospect is frightening. We should never forget that the more positive boundaries of charisma are easily broken. Given the existence of a bipolar self (Kohut, 1971), with its dormant needs of mirroring and idealizing and its potential for excess, charismatic processes require constant vigilance.

It is important for both leaders and followers to be cognizant of the existence of the destructive side effects of charisma, for this realization is the first step toward corrective action. Clinical research has revealed that if individuals are made aware of their transference reactions, these valuable insights into behavior can be stepping stones to productive change. When we notice frequent mood shifts, sudden irritability, feelings of envy, a sense of being watched, an excessive concern about what others think, or the continuous need for an audience, we may be on the track to possible transference distortions.

Charismatic leaders and their followers can minimize transference distortions. This requires not only mature leadership but also mature followership. Unfortunately, rare is the leader who balances action with reflection and distinguishes fact from fantasy. And even rarer is the leader who recognizes the need for boundaries when the formidable forces that make for charisma have been unleashed.

References

Bensman, J., and Givant, M. “Charisma and Modernity: The Use and Abuse of a Concept.” Social Research, 1975, 42 (4), 570–614.

Bion, W. R. Experiences in Groups. London: Tavistock, 1959.

Breuer, J., and Freud, S. “Studies on Hysteria.” In J. Strachey (ed. and trans.), The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. Vol. 2. London: Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psychoanalysis, 1893–1895.

Erikson, E. H. Young Man Luther. New York: Norton, 1958.

Erikson, E. H. Gandhi's Truth: On the Origins of Militant Non-violence. New York: Norton, 1969.

Freud, A. The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense. (Rev. ed.) New York: International Universities Press, 1936.

Freud, S. “The Interpretation of Dreams.” In J. Strachey (ed. and trans.), The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. Vol. 5. London: Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psychoanalysis, 1900.

Freud, S. “Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego.” In J. Strachey (ed. and trans.), The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. Vol. 18. London: Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psychoanalysis, 1921.

Freud, S. “Moses and Monotheism.” In J. Strachey (ed. and trans.), The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. Vol. 23. London: Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psychoanalysis, 1939.

Geertz, C. The Interpretation of Culture. New York: Basic Books, 1973.

Geertz, C. Local Knowledge. New York: Basic Books, 1983.

Greenson, R. R. The Technique and Practice of Psychoanalysis. Vol. 1. New York: International Universities Press, 1967.

Kernberg, O. Object Relations Theory and Clinical Psychoanalysis. New York: Aronson, 1976.

Kernberg, O. Internal World and External Reality. New York: Aronson, 1985.

Kets de Vries, M.F.R. Organizational Paradoxes: Clinical Approaches to Management. London: Tavistock, 1980.

Kets de Vries, M.F.R., and Miller, D. The Neurotic Organization: Diagnosing and Changing Counterproductive Styles of Management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1984.

Kets de Vries, M.F.R., and Miller, D. “Interpreting Organizational text.” Journal of Management Studies, forthcoming.

Klein, M. Contributions to Psychoanalysis, 1921–45. London: Hogarth Press, 1948.

Kohut, H. The Analysis of the Self. New York: International Universities Press, 1971.

Kohut, H., and Wolf, E. S. “The Disorders of the Self and Their Treatment: An Outline.” International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1978, 59, 413–426.

Langs, R. The Therapeutic Interaction. 2 vols. New York: Aronson, 1976.

Lasswell, H. D. Psychopathology and Politics. (Rev. ed.) New York: Viking Penguin, 1960.

Mahler, M. S., Pine, F., and Bergman, A. The Psychological Birth of the Human Infant. New York: Basic Books, 1975.

Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., and Dukerich, J. M. “The Romance of Leadership.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 1985, 30, 78–102.

Ogden, T. H. Projective Identification and Psychotherapeutic Technique. New York: Aronson, 1982.

Shils, E. “Charisma.” In D. L. Sills (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Vol. 2. New York: Macmillan and Free Press, 1968.

Sohm, R. Kirchenrecht. 2 vols. Leipzig, E. Germany: Duncker & Humblot, 1892.

Storr, A. The Art of Psychotherapy. New York: Methuen, 1979.

Tucker, R. “The Theory of Charismatic Leadership.” Daedalus, 1968, 97, 731–756.

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.

Willner, A. R., and Willner, D. “The Rise and Role of Charismatic Leaders. “Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1965, 358, 77–88.

Zaleznik, A., and Kets de Vries, M.F.R. Power and the Corporate Mind. (Rev. ed.) Chicago: Bonus Books, 1985.