A Comprehensive Review on the Characteristics of Charismatic Leadership

Charismatic leadership theory (CLT) reveals that methodologies have been refined and modified with the passage of time and the theory is as relevant today as it was back in the early 20th century. The early theorists coined that born leaders were endowed with certain physical traits and personality characteristics which distinguished them from non-leaders.

In the more dominant theories of leadership there exists the belief that leadership is a process that involves the influence of a group of people toward the realization of goals (Wolinski, 2010). While all contemporary theories fall under one of the following three perspectives: leadership as a process or relationship, leadership as a combination of traits or personality characteristics, or leadership as certain behaviors or, as they are more commonly referred to as, leadership skills.

This review will focus on CLT and doing a pro/con analysis so a reader may determine the results when implementing this leadership style. Max Weber (1947), who you could say is the “father” of charismatic leadership, termed charisma as the greatest revolutionary force. He stated it could produce a completely new mindset of its followers as well as a complete personal devotion to leaders they perceived as endowed with almost magical supernatural, superhuman qualities and powers. In this review the focus will be on CLT and the tight connection among the leader’s behavior, the follower’s behavior and motivations, the institutionalization of the leader-follower relationship, and the drawbacks if CLT is used in a vacuum. The review will focus heavily on the strengths and weaknesses when a leader exercises these concepts throughout an organization.

The Benefits of Charismatic Leadership

Idealized Influence. It is the attribute of a leader which inspires followers to take their leader as a role model. Charisma is an alternate term which replaces idealized influence. Idealized influence creates values that inspire, establish sense, and engender a sense of purpose amongst people. Idealized influence is inspirational in nature. It builds attitudes about what is significant in life. Idealized influence is related with charismatic leadership (Yukl, 1999; Shamir et al., 1993). Charismatic leaders instill self-confidence onto others. It is their demonstration of confidence in a follower’s preparedness to make self-sacrifices and an aptitude to undertake exceptional goals which is an influential rousing force of idealized influence and role-modeling behavior (House and Shamir, 1993). Leaders with confidence in their employees can secure great accomplishments. Leaders with idealized influence are endowed with a constructive sense of self-determination.

Influence of Charismatic Leaders

Boyett (2006) mentioned the role of leaders is crucial in gaining the trust of their subordinates and stimulate their commitment towards the successful fulfillment of the undertaken project. Boyett (2006) described the influence of leaders in the following manner. Firstly, the leaders should have idealized influence, in other words, they have to be charismatic. Leaders can execute the confidence and competence. Secondly, leaders should be able to inspire their followers; this is mainly attributed to their role of inspirational motivation. It is important for the leaders to be able to take each separately while dealing with them. Each person is different from the others regarding their characteristics; needs, wants and attitude towards specific tasks. Therefore, leaders should have the individual consideration to each team member. While Beyer (1993) defines charisma in terms of five constituent elements: crisis confrontation; extraordinary gifts and personal qualities; a radical vision that provides a solution to the crisis; support from “followers” who are highly motivated and convinced by the leader’s vision; and past success to justify belief in his leadership.

Charismatic leaders' use of multiple positive goals and emphasis on the importance of people as a causal mechanism encourages a focus on idea generation activities that are essential to the middle stages of problem-solving (Mumford & Licuanan, 2004; Mumford, Scott, & Hunter, 2006). Charismatic leaders, given their broad goals and focus on empowerment, emphasize middle stage processes focused on developing multiple potential solutions to the focal issue. Charismatic leaders, given their focus on the future and use of positive experiences in the sensemaking process, provide a positively charged message of change to inspire hope (Strange & Mumford, 2005) while also emphasizing the importance of stakeholder empowerment (Conger and Kanungo, 1987, Conger and Kanungo, 1998). This approach has widespread appeal to multiple groups, encouraging members throughout organizations to accept the vision (Klein & House, 1998; Mumford, 2006).

Charismatic, Ideological, and Pragmatic Model

The charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic (CIP) model of leadership provides a unique perspective that promotes multiple distinct, yet equally, effective leadership approaches. As a central part of its examination of multiple pathways to effective leadership, the model presents a compelling theoretical foundation, addressing several of the criticisms of other prominent leadership theories. In addition to its strong conceptual foundation, the model has garnered substantial attention and support over the last decade. Given its conceptual strengths and expanding foundation of empirical support, the CIP model shows great potential to contribute to the leadership domain moving forward. As such, there are benefits to be gained from a comprehensive review of the key aspects of the model, an evaluation of its strengths and weaknesses, and the identification of critical future directions essential to bolstering the CIP model's potential to expand our understanding of leadership in science and practice. The central premise of the model is that there is no one best way to lead. Instead, each leadership style is capable of exceptional performance, in the aggregate, using different approaches to critical organizational events in varied situations (Mumford, 2006).

Given Mumford and colleagues original focus on examples of exceptional organizational performance, they specifically conceptualized the CIP model within the upper echelons of organizations. Given the CIP model's use of the term “charismatic leadership” to describe one of the styles detailed by the theory, it is reasonable to expect comparisons with other prominent leadership theories that invoke the same terminology. As an important point of note, Mumford's (2006) conceptualization of charismatic leadership deviates significantly from other prominent theories of charismatic/transformational leadership (Banks et al., 2017; Bass & Avolio, 1995; Conger and Kanungo, 1987, Conger and Kanungo, 1994, Conger and Kanungo, 1998; Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993), as it argues that leader style originates from leader cognition as opposed to operationalizing the leadership approach in terms of leader-follower interactions or the effect of leadership.

That said, understanding the key similarities and differences between CIP - charismatic leadership and other charismatic/transformational theories facilitates a clearer understanding of the contributions of this review. The similarities between these theories and CIP–charismatic leadership stem primarily from the focus on the importance of vision, vision articulation, and the change-oriented nature of each leadership perspective. Broadly all these theories stress the importance of conveying a sense of purpose, a collective mission based on a future oriented vision, and high-performance expectations. Charismatic leaders see people and their actions as key to the achievement of their desired end state, causing them to seek widespread support from broad groups of stakeholders (e.g., Mumford, Scott, & Hunter, 2006; Shamir et al., 1993).

As such, charismatic leaders frame problems in terms of people's needs and stress the importance of the broad empowerment of members of the organizations to enact their vision, creating high levels of trust and collaboration between leaders and followers. Ideological leaders view situations as less malleable, leading them to a rigid adherence to a belief system that transcends environmental conditions (Ligon et al., 2008; Mumford, Scott, & Hunter, 2006). Therefore, they focus on appealing to those individuals that share their values, creating a tight-knit group of close relationships with high levels of trust and loyalty between leaders and followers. Pragmatic leaders believe that people and the environment interact to facilitate successful organizational performance, leading them to appeal to select individuals whose positions enable substantive influence over the organizational context (i.e., organizational elites) (Bedell-Avers et al., 2009; Mumford & Van Doorn, 2001). Thus, they tend to allow followers great autonomy in doing their work while showing significant respect for follower concerns.

Charismatic leadership theory describes what to expect from both leaders and followers. Charismatic leadership is a leadership style that is identifiable but may be perceived with less tangibility than other leadership styles (Bell, 2013). Often called a transformational leadership style, charismatic leaders inspire eagerness in their teams and are energetic in motivating employees to move forward. The ensuing excitement and commitment from teams is an enormous asset to productivity and goal achievement. The negative side of charismatic leadership is the amount of confidence placed in the leader rather than in employees. This can create the risk of a project or even in an entire organization collapsing if the leader leaves. Additionally, a charismatic leader may come to believe that s/he can do no wrong, even when others are warning him or her about the path s/he is on; feelings of invincibility can ruin a team or an organization.

The Drawbacks of Charismatic Leadership

Additionally, both charismatic and ideological leaders were more likely than pragmatic leaders to utilize coalition building tactics as they aimed to develop support from groups who identified with their vision. Charismatic leaders struggled in highly complex situations that did not fit with their future oriented, multi-goal approach. Often the vision-based tactics of charismatic leaders can be highly complex, due to their use of numerous goals, which can be overwhelming for followers (Daft & Weick, 1984; Mumford, 2006). Also, charismatic leaders' intense focus on their vision can create a tendency to only consider information that is relevant to specified goals, limiting broader environmental scanning efforts.

Adopting a follower-centric lens, Thoroughgood and Sawyer (2017) investigated how follower personality profiles predicted preferences for CIP leader types. They found that more than half of their sample preferred non-charismatic leaders, undermining the prominence of charismatic/transformational leadership as the sole model of effective leadership from a follower perspective. Additionally, they found that team-oriented, emotionally stable, future focused, and less rationally minded individuals preferred charismatic leaders. People focused on rationality, autonomy, and competition preferred pragmatic leaders. Meanwhile, individuals focused on traditional values preferred ideological leaders.

Charismatic Routinization Must Happen

Weber highlights the capacity of charismatic domination to give rise to new configurations for action and new orders or institutions, but he also emphasizes its fragility. Because it lies in the belief in the specific ‘supernatural qualities’ of eminent leaders, and because these ‘heroic’ figures are expected to provide constant proof of their unusual powers and their right to govern, charismatic power is naturally unstable. Even the extreme intensity of the personal devotion shown to leaders and the complete turnaround internalized by their support staff is not sufficient to guarantee that the charismatic leader’s precepts will survive in their pure form(Petit, 2012).

Weber’s first explanation is that the leader experiences a fall from grace: “If proof and success elude the leader for long, if he appears deserted by his god or his magical or heroic powers, above all, if his leadership fails to benefit his followers, it is likely that its charismatic authority will disappear. This is the genuine meaning of the divine right of kings” (Weber, 1978, p. 242). As we have seen, the strength of a person’s charisma lies in this ‘magical’ faith that supporters show in rallying around him. If it is to last, their faith requires material proof which must then be verified. The absence of (perceived) success brings about an attenuation of the belief in a manager’s ‘extraordinary qualities’, leads to disarray (adulation can turn to hate), and can ultimately provoke the manager’s departure. Routinization occurs at this point of severance: with the dissipation of belief and the impression that one has been deluded, the charismatic leader is seen as an impostor.

Conclusion

Like all sections of your paper, references start on their own page, as you see on the page that follows. Just type in-text citations as you do any text of your paper, as shown at the end of this paragraph and the preceding paragraph. (Last Name, Year)