UNIT II

Journal of Religion and Business Ethics

Volume 3 Article 19

August 2015

Common Threads among Different Forms of Charismatic Leadership (REVISED) Ylva Sandberg [email protected]

Christopher M. Moreman California State University, East Bay, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://via.library.depaul.edu/jrbe

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Religion and Business Ethics by an authorized administrator of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected].

Recommended Citation Sandberg, Ylva and Moreman, Christopher M. (2015) "Common Threads among Different Forms of Charismatic Leadership (REVISED)," Journal of Religion and Business Ethics: Vol. 3, Article 19. Available at: http://via.library.depaul.edu/jrbe/vol3/iss1/19

Introduction

Charismatic leaders have and continue to have the ability to mobilize people.

Some start new religions, some unify citizens of a nation, and some lead business

empires. What is charisma and what is it about charisma that attracts and

mobilizes groups of people around one person? Though charismatic leadership

has been a focus of leadership studies for decades, there remains a lack of clarity

in determining precisely the characteristics that define charisma itself. Over a

quarter century since its publication, Conger and Kanungo’s treatment of

charismatic leadership remains influential as a seminal understanding of the

phenomenon. 1 Their paper most importantly illustrates the problem of what they

term “mystical” elements of charisma; they argue that in order to understand

charisma, these elements must be stripped away. Of course, the fact that little

advance has been made in our understanding of charisma since their paper

appeared suggests the abiding importance of just such features of charisma and

the likelihood that ignoring the more ephemeral aspects of charisma does more

harm than good to our ability to comprehend charismatic leadership fully. Recent

studies have aimed to construct a theory of leadership that contrasts charismatic

leadership with what can be termed ideological and pragmatic forms of

leadership. 2 Though the observations made by Mumford, et al.

3 are useful and

effective, gaps in what they tell us about the nature of charisma and charismatic

leadership appear. Hunt and Davis, in particular, 4 have shown that while

Mumford et al.’s theory 5 does well to account for charismatic leadership at the

group and environmental levels, it has little to nothing to say about charismatic

leadership at either the individual or organizational levels. In actuality, such

studies tend to describe the ways in which charismatic leadership appears,

especially in terms of leader-follower relationships, but shed little if any light

upon the nature of charisma itself.

1 Jay Conger and Rabindra Kanungo, “Toward a Behavioral Theory of Charismatic Leadership in

Organizational Settings,” Academy of Management Review 12 (1987): 637-647. 2 Michael D. Mumford, Alison L. Antes, Jay J. Caughron, and Tamra L. Friedrich, “Charismatic,

Ideological, and Pragmatic Leadership: Multi-Level Influences on Emergence and Performance,”

The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008): 144-160; Michael D. Mumford, Samuel T. Hunter, Tamara

L. Friedrich, and Jay J. Caughron, “Charismatic, Ideological, and Pragmatic Leadership: An

Examination of Multi-Level Influences on Emergence and Performance,” in Multi-Level Issues in

Organizational Behavior and Leadership, ed. Francis J. Yammarino and Fred Dansereau (Bingley,

UK: JAI Press, 2009). 3 Mumford, et al., “Multi-Level Influences,” & Mumford, et al., “An Examination.”

4 James G. (Jerry) Hunt and John N. Davis, “Levels of Performance: Multi-Level Perspectives on

Outstanding Leadership,” in Multi-Level Issues in Organizational Behavior and Leadership, ed.

Francis J. Yammarino and Fred Dansereau (Bingley, UK: JAI Press, 2009), 119. 5 As described in Mumford et al., “Multilevel Influences.”

1

Sandberg and Moreman: Common Threads among Different Forms of Charismatic Leadership (R

Published by Via Sapientiae, 2014

We propose that charisma, through its appeal to emotion in an unstable

world, is equivalent across such organizational structures as religion, politics, and

business. Further, the similarities that can be identified across these fields of

leadership, and among individual leaders, can help us to more clearly define the

nature of charismatic leadership through recognizing the importance of charisma

itself. This paper will explore the phenomenon of charisma in order to find

common threads of charismatic leadership among religious or spiritual, political,

and business leaders.

Defining Charisma

The first hurdle to clear is defining charisma. Jane Halbert writes that there have

been many different interpretations and definitions of charisma proposed with

scholars across multiple disciplines contributing to the discussion about what

charisma is and how it should be defined. 6 This variety of opinions has naturally

resulted in disagreements and misunderstandings. Sociologist Max Weber first

introduced the term in the nineteenth century; he found charismatic leadership to

be a non-rational form of authority, creating the sociological foundation for what

continues to be debated today. According to Weber, charisma is defined as a

“supernatural” trait that emerges in natural leaders in a time of distress. 7 Many

modern scholars bristle at the mention of the supernatural. Conger and Kanungo,

in their seminal work on the subject, sought to define a conceptual framework of

charismatic leadership that would alleviate “its elusive nature and the mysterious

connotation of the term,” and to “strip the aura of mysticism from charisma and to

deal with it strictly as a behavioral process.” 8 However much one may wish to

distance one’s self from the notion of the supernatural as unscientific, the fact

remains that the effects of charisma often feel innate, inexplicable, and even

supernatural to those who experience them. And such recognition is in no way

limited solely to the religious sphere. Behavioral models are fine for identifying

behaviors associated with certain groups and types, but it does nothing to identify

the inner workings of an individual, or those with whom he or she relates. 9

6 J. A. Halpert, “The Dimensionality of Charisma,” Journal of Business and Psychology 4.4

(1990): 399. 7 Max Weber, On Charisma and Institution Building (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

1968), 18-19. 8 Conger and Kanungo, “Toward a Behavioral Theory,” 637 & 639.

9 We might note here as well that while Conger and Kanungo decry Weber’s lack of specificity in

using terms like “magical abilities,” “heroism,” and “power of the mind and speech,” their model

has done little to clarify the issue. For example, Gary Yukl follows Conger and Kanungo in

identifying means by which a charismatic leader can induce social identification with the group,

which include “the skillful use of slogans, symbols, rituals, ceremonies, and stories (about past

successes, heroic deeds by members, and symbolic actions by the founder of [sic] former

2

Journal of Religion and Business Ethics, Vol. 3 [2014], Art. 19

http://via.library.depaul.edu/jrbe/vol3/iss1/19

Since then, many researchers have examined and redefined the nature of

charisma. Burke and Brinkerhoff describe charisma, and charismatic leadership,

as concepts that have been “criticized for being theoretically and

methodologically imprecise.” 10

They describe three different interpretations of the

concept: the religious, sociological, and modern interpretations. The religious

interpretation is mainly dominated by religious and spiritual leaders who

experience “prophecies” and other direct communications with a higher power.

Lorne Dawson describes how most apocalyptic movements, for instance,

incorporate belief in at least two types of prophet: the original visionary founder

and the contemporary figures who continue to expound this vision to followers. 11

The sociological aspect is based on Weber’s theories, emphasizing that “both the

exceptional characteristics of the individual invested with charisma and the social

conditions fostering the emergence and recognition of charismatic leaders.” 12

The

modern interpretation is based on the same theory but has been expanded and

improved through the scientific study of testable hypotheses. Charismatic figures

are framed as “intelligent, innovative, persuasive, and magnetic leaders who

emerge in situations where people are economically, socially, and politically

oppressed.” 13

Moreover, Burke and Brinkerhoff identify a need for a more

accurate measure of charisma to allow comparisons between different fields of

leadership. 14

They additionally claim that the foundation for such a measure can

be observed though a ten-item index. This can be seen as a start to narrowly

defining what charisma is in measurable terms. However, experts remain divided

and no one scale of measure has received recognition across disciplines.

From a sociological standpoint, Worsley argues that charisma is a matter

of recognition. The concept constitutes “a relationship, not an attribute of

individual personality or a mystical quality,” making it impossible to measure

charisma with only one person. 15

Without followers, leaders are powerless, thus

leaders).” See Yukl, “A Retrospective on Robert House’s ‘1976 Theory of Charismatic

Leadership’ and Recent Revisions,” The Leadership Quarterly 4.3 (1993): 371. Of course,

“skillful” use of the above is not explained, though we expect that a charismatic leader would

demonstrate just such skill. 10

K. L. Burke, & M. B. Brinkerhoff, “Capturing Charisma: Notes on an Elusive Concept,”

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 20.3 (1981): 274. 11

Lorne Dawson, Comprehending Cults: The Sociology of New Religious Movements (New York:

Oxford University Press, 2006), 152. 12

Burke & Brinkerhoff, “Capturing Charisma,” 274. 13

Burke & Brinkerhoff, “Capturing Charisma,” 274. 14

Burke & Brinkerhoff, “Capturing Charisma.” 15

Quoted in P. Piovanelli, “Jesus’ Charismatic Authority: On the Historical Applicability of a

Sociological Model,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 73.2 (2005): 403.

3

Sandberg and Moreman: Common Threads among Different Forms of Charismatic Leadership (R

Published by Via Sapientiae, 2014

charismatic leadership cannot exist without a relationship between the two.

Nonetheless, many non-charismatic leaders have ended up in positions of

leadership through, for instance, heredity and seniority, by no means ensuring

charismatic leadership. The leader-follower relationship simply explains the

nature of leadership itself, indicating that the relationship is an important aspect of

charisma, but not the core. More accurately, Barnes states that charisma is the

“authority relationship which arises when a leader through the dynamics of a set

of teachings, a unique personality, or both elicits responses of awe, deference, and

devotion from a group of people.” 16

Barnes also points out that much of the

confusion surrounding our understanding of charisma has arisen from the blurry

distinction between charisma and charismatic leadership. We ought to keep in

mind his important distinction that a charismatic leader may be described as a

display of its many different behaviors, while charisma must be recognized as a

relationship between people and a leader. Moreover, it may seem obvious, but

bears repeating, that while all charismatic leaders are charismatic, not every

charismatic individual becomes a charismatic leader. Though many leaders may

attempt to adopt the successful behaviors of charismatic leaders, without the

personal attribute of charisma itself, they are bound to fail at being accepted as a

charismatic leader.

Jerrold Post explains the leader-follower relationship as a type of extended

narcissism. 17

This is significant since charisma then requires a leader with high

self-esteem that attracts followers who admire him or her and that are willing to

follow his or her teachings. Pathologizing charismatic leadership opens the door

to another interpretation. In relation to the uncanny phenomena of mob mentality

that Freud called the Primal Horde, 18

“charisma is a dangerous form of alienation,

in which are involved a mentally ill leader, embodying the ‘dreaded primal

father,’ and some disturbed followers, victims of their Oedipal complex, and in

need of resocialization.” 19

Certainly, an irrational willingness to follow based on

such an intangible aspect as charisma has the potential for very serious abuse. 20

Still, a pathological explanation is insufficient seeing that charisma and

charismatic leadership can be found across different institutions and have been

16

D. F. Barnes, “Charisma and Religious Leadership: An Historical Analysis,” Journal for the

Scientific Study of Religion 17.1 (1978): 2. 17

J. M. Post, “Narcissism and the Charismatic Leader-Follower Relationship,” Political

Psychology 7.4 (1986): 678. 18

Sigmund Freud, Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego, trans. James Strachey (New

York: Boni and Liveright, 1922). 19

Piovanelli, “Jesus’ Charismatic Authority,” 417. 20

See Al-Karim Samnani, and Parbudyal Singh, “When Leaders Victimize: The Role of

Charismatic Leaders in Facilitating Group Pressures,” The Leadership Quarterly 24 (2013), 189-

202.

4

Journal of Religion and Business Ethics, Vol. 3 [2014], Art. 19

http://via.library.depaul.edu/jrbe/vol3/iss1/19

used for both negative and positive outcomes. However, the interpretation is

partly supported by Post, who expresses charismatic leaders as self-obsessed

individuals that attract insecure people looking for guidance. 21

Yet, the situation

seems to expand in times of societal distress when all types of personalities tend

to flock around charismatic leaders.

Additionally, “times of societal distress” represent the circumstance under

which Weber claims that “natural” leaders emerge. 22

It seems that most experts

attribute more to the societal situation than the personality traits of a charismatic

leader. Research has suggested, for example, that the state of stress may itself

evoke the feeling that a randomly chosen leader is charismatic rather than the

need for a specific leader with charisma to emerge. 23

However, not everyone

possesses charisma; hence, there needs to be a personality trait or aspect that plays

a crucial role as well. This aspect needs to be proven through confirmation of the

power and authority the leader possesses. According to Weber, charisma should

not be taken for granted by a charismatic leader; if the followers think that the

leader’s “blessed” power has abandoned him, the individual stands to lose

authority. This is likely to happen when the societal distress ceases. 24

Further,

Weber writes that since charismatic leaders’ authority stems from their

personalities, contrary to an external source such as rank, they are under constant

pressure to prove themselves. A prophet needs to prove his ability through

miracles, a warlord needs to “perform heroic deeds,” and, ultimately, matters

must work out to the benefit of their followers. 25

This means that even though

societal distress tends to initiate the emergence of charismatic leaders, it is only an

instrument for gaining recognition and holds no real power to legitimize authority

unless the charismatic leader proves him or herself continuously. Dawson has

found that continued successes are necessary to mediate potential crises of

legitimacy common when leadership is based on charisma rather than some

institutional model. Likewise, Barnes’ findings support the position that

charismatic leaders emerge in times of societal distress when people are looking

for a leader; however, he also notes that even though the social environment is

key for charisma to exist, the direction or mission of the charismatic leader is up

to the individual leader. 26

The personality aspect of leadership shines through in

all areas of authority. Some leaders will choose a path based on where they think

21

Post, “Narcissism.” 22

Weber, On Charisma. 23

Stefanie K. Halverson, Susan Elaine Murphy, and Ronald E. Riggio, “Charismatic Leadership in

Crisis Situations: A Laboratory Investigation of Stress and Crisis,” Small Group Research 35.5

(2004): 495-514. 24

Weber, On Charisma, 49-50. 25

Weber, On Charisma, 22. 26

Barnes, “Charisma and Religious Leadership,” 15.

5

Sandberg and Moreman: Common Threads among Different Forms of Charismatic Leadership (R

Published by Via Sapientiae, 2014

they can get the most support while others have an ideological cause they find the

most important in life.

All in all, one can infer that there is no one definition of charisma. The

dilemma will be carefully examined through examples presented below. Whatever

else it may be, most researchers agree that charisma arises from within an

individual charismatic leader, though it must be recognized by a group in order to

manifest, and emerges in times of societal distress, when a leader-follower

relationship naturally arises as people seek for meaning and clarity.

Charisma in Religious and Spiritual Leaders

Historically, many recognized and influential charismatic leaders have been

religious and spiritual leaders. Barnes writes that such “charismatic leaders

usually have an intimate connection with a transcendent or immanent divine

source.” 27

Most interesting is that the root of the term charisma is in itself related

to the mystical experience. Piovanelli writes that the word originates from the

Greek word “charisma,” which came to mean “spiritual gift,” or more literarily, a

gift that a member of the Christian society received from the Spirit. These gifts

could include, but were not limited to, “inspired wisdom,” “prophecies,” and

“healing and working miracles.” 28

In early Christian societies, gifts from the

Spirit were not limited to any particular group of worshippers. However, after the

death of the apostle Paul, the Christian religion followed a different path set by

new Christian authority figures, and “spiritual gifts” became reserved for its

leaders. Eventually the use of the words “charisma” and “charismatic” came to

include “a wide range of phenomena displaying a direct and unmediated contact

between inspired individuals and supernatural beings.” 29

This laid the foundation

for more modern charismatic spiritual and religious leaders who claim to have a

direct connection with the divine and use that ability to gain a position of power

within their religion.

Barnes explains that religious charismatic leaders have been observed to

take on various roles in existing religions, leading the creation of new branches,

and establishing completely new religions. They have also been observed to have

remarkably different personalities and leadership styles. However, their purpose

stays the same, namely to help a group of people to cope with common issues,

including the meaning of life, death, and suffering. 30

Groups have been seen to

27

Barnes, “Charisma and Religious Leadership,” 3. 28

Piovanelli, “Jesus’ Charismatic Authority,” 396. 29

Piovanelli, “Jesus’ Charismatic Authority,” 396. 30

Barnes, “Charisma and Religious Leadership,” 2.

6

Journal of Religion and Business Ethics, Vol. 3 [2014], Art. 19

http://via.library.depaul.edu/jrbe/vol3/iss1/19

form, develop, and dissolve around these life questions and charismatic leaders

often play a role in the changing structure of religions.

Andelson studied charismatic leadership in the Amana Society, a religious

sect that originated in Germany, and found Weber’s conclusions about charisma’s

non-permanent nature to be true, adding that charisma is a creative phenomenon.

He explains that charismatic religious leaders gain support by combining older,

recognized teachings with new ideas. 31

Thus, their strength comes from having a

creative ability to “correct” a religion.

Furthermore, similarities can be seen among charismatic religious leaders.

Barnes argues that there are four common principals needed for a charismatic

religious leader-follower relationship to emerge. The first is what he calls “de-

alienation,” based on divine experience, meaning that the leader has come to

realize that the world is unstable because it is a human construct. The second

principle states that the leader is part of a minority group or lives during an era of

social rearrangement. The third principle says the leader will have unprecedented

teachings for the religion to continue. The fourth and final principle states that he

or she either starts new religions or works within an existing religion. 32

This

indicates that new charismatic leaders can emerge within or outside any existing

religion not only in times of social distress, but also at any time within subgroups,

as long as the charismatic leader has had a divine experience that reveals what he

or she thinks is the true core of the divine mission.

Charisma in Political Leaders

Many non-religious leaders exhibit vast power and control over groups of people,

often without leveraging a divine or spiritually inspired component. Now we see

that charisma and charismatic leadership extends far outside the bounds of

unmediated contact with the divine or supernatural. This type of non-religious

leadership is best described as “the extraordinary relationship existing between a

magnetic and (presumed) superhuman leader (as a political or military one) and

his or her bewitched followers.” 33

Horrifying examples of this type of charismatic

leadership can be found in Adolf Hitler and other authoritarian dictators. As the

Freudian interpretation of charisma holds, “a mentally ill leader” manipulates

charisma and attracts followers independent of their inherent intentions, 34

thereby

31

J. G. Andelson, “Routinization of Behavior in a Charismatic Leader,” American Ethnologist 7.4

(1980): 730. 32

Barnes, “Charisma and Religious Leadership,” 3. 33

Piovanelli, “Jesus’ Charismatic Authority,” 397. 34

Piovanelli, “Jesus’ Charismatic Authority,” 417.

7

Sandberg and Moreman: Common Threads among Different Forms of Charismatic Leadership (R

Published by Via Sapientiae, 2014

opening the door to the realm of bad intentions that beg consideration when

discussing charisma.

Bad intentions in leaders can unfortunately be found in many places. The

difference between a charismatic leader with bad intentions and any other type of

leader is that the charismatic leaders possess an unusual power of attraction.

Hanna Arendt presents a particular explanation for Adolf Hitler’s attraction.

According to her, his charisma was founded in an exceptionally strong belief in

himself. Arendt writes that Hitler early on became aware that “Extraordinary self-

confidence and displays of self-confidence [...] inspire confidence in others;

pretensions to genius waken the conviction in others that they are indeed dealing

with a genius.” 35

Hitler did display immense self-confidence in a time of despair;

however, it is not likely that this attribute was the single reason for his success.

According to Arendt, Hitler’s foremost advantage was that he always had an

opinion, no matter the subject discussed. 36

Consequently, having an opinion made

others believe that he possessed exceptional intelligence and clarity in life.

On one hand, it seems Hitler’s own conviction that Jews and other

minority groups were to blame for Germany’s misfortunes allowed him to utilize

his charisma to convince his followers to support his mission. On the other hand,

Hitler’s power may have come from a polarized view of the world, allowing him

to convince the German people that what he stood for was good and that all

opposition was evil. 37

This polarization has also been noticed in speeches given

by other charismatic leaders, such as, Franklin Delano Roosevelt; some even go

as far as to say that Roosevelt “identified himself with Moses” while often

referring to biblical texts. 38

Through delivering such lines, he displayed behaviors

similar to religious charismatic leaders. Post notes that charismatic leaders can be

effective in their leadership because of their ability to communicate a black-and-

white view of the world, and that the most effective leaders truly believe in the

polarized view of the world they present to their followers. 39

Hitler came into

power at a time when the Germans were looking for someone to blame for their

misery, and there is also some suggestion that the German people were

historically likely to idolize charismatic military and political leaders. 40

This, in

35

Quoted in R. Eatwell, “The Concept and Theory of Charismatic Leadership,” Totalitarian

Movements & Political Religions 7.2 (2006): 141. 36

Eatwell, “The Concept and Theory of Charismatic Leadership,” 141. 37

Post, “Narcissism,” 680. 38

Post, “Narcissism,” 680. 39

Post, “Narcissism,” 681. 40

M. Lepsius, “The Model of Charismatic Leadership and its Applicability to the Rule of Adolf

Hitler,” Totalitarian Movements & Political Religions 7.2 (2006): 177.

8

Journal of Religion and Business Ethics, Vol. 3 [2014], Art. 19

http://via.library.depaul.edu/jrbe/vol3/iss1/19

turn, creates a cultural foundation relatively prone to support authoritarian

dictators, especially when combined with social crisis.

The use of rhetoric is powerful in exerting charisma. A closer look at

political figures claimed to evoke charisma reveals that many deny weaknesses in

themselves and transfer blame to an external source. 41

Agreeableness, not to be

confused with likeability, is negatively related to charisma, while dominance and

a need for power are positively correlated – as Dean Simonton puts it: “These are

pushy people.” 42

It has also been said that political leaders usually have certain

traits in common: they have a mission and a vision for accomplishing that

mission; they use inclusive language such as “we” instead of “you”; they find or

create an enemy within or outside the nation; and they have personal attributes

that attract people to them. 43

When people feel that they belong, they are more

likely to blindly follow a leader and fight for a specific cause. Charismatic leaders

and their followers typically believe that they are fighting for a supreme cause and

subsequently trust that they are defending good against evil. Smith argues that

Hitler, similarly to other charismatic political leaders, such as Martin Luther King

Jr., and Winston Churchill, was convinced that he was bringing salvation to his

people. 44

Nonetheless, there have been those, particularly with a Judeo-Christian

background, who claim that “only virtuous people can be defined as

charismatic.” 45

This definition leaves out previously discussed group of

authoritarian leaders; nonetheless, many of these leaders where successful in their

leadership. Therefore, charisma cannot be defined as a virtuous trait, but rather a

morally neutral one. Similarly to how religious leaders “save” people by helping a

group to cope with issues, the political leaders see themselves as bringing

salvation to the people by correcting injustices or defending them against an

enemy.

Typically, political charismatic leaders stand outside traditional politics

and confront the rational political system. Some political leaders are even seen as

too radical and are treated as outcasts until a societal crisis arises. An example is

Winston Churchill, whose charismatic authority did not emerge until there was a

common enemy to be found in the Germans, thus allowing him to claim that he

could bring salvation to the British people. 46

Similarly, Martin Luther King Jr.’s

41

Post, “Narcissism,” 682. 42

Dean Keith Simonton, “Presidential Leadership Styles: How Do They Map on Charismatic,

Ideological, and Pragmatic Leadership?” in Multi-Level Issues in Organizational Behavior and

Leadership, eds. Francis J. Yammarino and Fred Dansereau (Bingley, UK: JAI Press, 2009), 127. 43

Eatwell, “The Concept and Theory of Charismatic Leadership,” 144-148. 44

P. Smith, “Culture and Charisma: Outline of a Theory,” Acta Sociologica 43.2 (2000): 103-105. 45

Halpert, “The Dimensionality of Charisma,” 400. 46

Smith, “Culture and Charisma,” 107.

9

Sandberg and Moreman: Common Threads among Different Forms of Charismatic Leadership (R

Published by Via Sapientiae, 2014

charisma did not surface until an opportunity to fight for salvation arose through

Rosa Parks’s arrest. It should be noted that there is no guarantee that a charismatic

leader will appear as a leader by simply using the language of charisma when a

country is in social crisis. Evidence of this can be found in various cases – for

instance, in one study, President Clinton was not considered charismatic despite

employing charismatic rhetoric to unite the American people against Hussein and

Milosevic, thereby illustrating that behavior alone is not enough. 47

The

supernatural personality aspect is important as well, which supports Barnes’

conclusion that mimicking charismatic leadership does not create charisma. Thus,

charisma still has an internal component that is nontransferable.

Political charismatic leaders have shaped the world we are living in

through their extensive impact on people and societies. Aberbach writes that

charisma is morally neutral. It is neither good nor evil; the motive is irrelevant,

charisma is non-rational and unpredictable and therefore it can be used for any

purpose. 48

One way to explore this irrational impact is to imagine how the world

would have looked if some of the most historically influential leaders had died

before they came into power. 49

Although, we cannot know for certain how the

world would have looked without Adolf Hitler, Franklin Delano Roosevelt,

Martin Luther King Jr., or Winston Churchill, since it is possible that someone

else may have taken their place, their impact in the world is impressive and their

authority extends outside of rationality.

Charisma in Business Leaders

Charismatic leadership in a business environment has many similar features to

religious and political charismatic leadership. Cray, Inglis, and Freeman show that

charismatic business leaders are often seen in new or changing organizations and

they present high self-esteem along with strong conviction. 50

Accordingly, these

leaders present properties that are similar to those of charismatic religious and

political leaders.

Charismatic leadership translated into the business world can be

interpreted in different ways. Worden writes that charisma “involves the

47

Smith, “Culture and Charisma,” 109. 48

D. Aberbach, Charisma in Politics, Religion and the Media (New York: New York University

Press, 1996), 108. 49

Aberbach, Charisma in Politics, Religion and the Media, 1. 50

David Cray, Loretta Inglis, and Susan Freeman, “Managing the Arts: Leadership and Decision

Making under Dual Rationalities,” Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society 36.4 (2007):

299.

10

Journal of Religion and Business Ethics, Vol. 3 [2014], Art. 19

http://via.library.depaul.edu/jrbe/vol3/iss1/19

perception of ‘energy’ and ‘connection’ because it draws on a ‘larger matter,’

such as fundamental principles or visions touching on something felt as real or

sacred.” 51

This connects back to the religious roots of the word in indicating that

charisma “has a spiritual non-rational dimension.” 52

Worden also claims that

some religious business leaders allow elements of their religion to influence their

leadership style and adopt a religiously appropriate style of charisma. Although,

charismatic leadership does not have to be related to any religion, it encourages

religious or spiritual aspects in followers, such as a transferal of responsibility and

worship-like behavior. The co-dependence between a charismatic leader and his

or her followers can become a liability in a corporate environment due to an

immense trust in the leader’s judgment and the fear of letting him or her down. 53

Babcock-Roberson and Strickland found that there is a strong correlation between

charismatic leadership in business and worker engagement. 54

Just like followers

becoming increasingly engaged in their religious group, workers tend to be more

engaged at work if a charismatic leader is present. In fact, the narcissistic

tendency of the charismatic leader may manifest a need for increasing levels of

commitment and sacrifice. This may both reflect loyalty to the leader as well as a

sense of unity that arises in working towards a common goal during times of crisis

or change.

Similarly to citizens and believers looking for a cause to fight for, people

in a corporate environment search for a higher mission, especially in new,

emerging organizations or in organizations in crisis. Philip Smith describes a

complex cultural dilemma around a “charismatic hero” such as a political leader

or a business leader, by suggesting that the “leader’s charisma is ultimately

dependent upon the actions and representations of his or her imagined enemy.” 55

This is in line with the black-and-white language used by other groups of

charismatic leaders encouraging the creation of an “enemy” and establishing a

mission to mobilize people against or around. Another risk with charismatic

business leaders is that employees may become loyal to a specific person within

the organization instead of the organization itself. 56

This can potentially cause

problems when a leader’s goals and ideals are not perfectly in line with those of

the company, or when a leader decides to leave the organization.

51

S. Worden, “Religion in Strategic Leadership: A Positivistic, Normative/Theological, and

Strategic Analysis,” Journal of Business Ethics 57.3 (2005): 223. 52

Worden, “Religion in Strategic Leadership,” 223. 53

Cray, Inglis, & Freeman, “Managing the Arts,” 299. 54

M. Babcock-Roberson & O. J. Strickland, “The Relationship between Charismatic Leadership,

Work Engagement, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors,” Journal of Psychology 144.3

(2010): 322. 55

Smith, “Culture and Charisma,” 110. 56

Babcock-Roberson & Strickland, “The Relationship between Charismatic Leadership.”

11

Sandberg and Moreman: Common Threads among Different Forms of Charismatic Leadership (R

Published by Via Sapientiae, 2014

The Core of Charisma

Much of the current scholarly discussion around the definition of charisma comes

down to the societal situation in which it emerges rather than the actual

individual. There is, however, no doubt that some people are more effective at

mobilizing others; and this attribute seems to be inexplicable, often described as

supernatural. Nevertheless, a charismatic personality is not all that is needed; a

leader without a cause, and without followers, is no leader at all. House’s theory

of charisma defines the following nine traits: “follower trust in the correctness of

the leader’s belief, similarities of followers’ beliefs to those of the leader,”

“unquestioning acceptance of the leader,” “affection for the leader,” “willing

obedience to the leader,” “identification with emulation of the leader,” “emotional

involvement of the follower in the mission,” “heightened goals of the follower,”

and “feeling on the part of followers that they will be able to accomplish, or

contribute to the accomplishment of, the mission.” 57

These traits both include the

follower’s relationship to the leader and to the mission he or she is trying to

accomplish, which can be easily applied within the religious, political, or business

contexts, considering that the mission could refer to any common goal the leader

is trying to accomplish.

Criticism of Charisma

Ever since Weber popularized the term, “charisma” has been a problematic area

of study for various reasons – one being the popularization of the term in society

and the media. Most scholars wish to remove any sense of the supernatural from

the discussion despite the experience of followers. Some hold that charisma is a

trait only held by a few leaders in the world while others use it to describe people

on a daily basis. Some, such as Arthur Schlesinger Jr., do not believe it to be

relevant today, and prefer to describe present-day politics as too complicated for

the concept of charisma to explain any effects. 58

Eatwell writes that some critics

even argue that the concept is only useful for analysis of “medicine men, warrior

chieftains, and religious prophets;” and, other critics go even further, claiming

that “charisma is nothing more than an amorphous and soggy ‘sponge’ concept

[...] that [...] should be banished from the historical and social science lexicons.” 59

Some also choose to blame the media and a “cult of personality” for trivializing

the word through everyday usage to the degree that it has become a synonym for

57

R. J. House, “A 1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership,” in Leadership: The Cutting Edge,

eds., J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1977). 58

Per Eatwell, “The Concept and Theory of Charismatic Leadership,” 142. 59

Eatwell, “The Concept and Theory of Charismatic Leadership,” 142.

12

Journal of Religion and Business Ethics, Vol. 3 [2014], Art. 19

http://via.library.depaul.edu/jrbe/vol3/iss1/19

attractive. 60

All of this naturally adds to the confusion about what is considered

charisma and how it can potentially be measured. Still, charisma and charismatic

leadership are present and continue to transform lives and societies.

Conclusion

Many would consider charisma to be a personality trait that few possess and most

lack, yet that explanation does not address reasons for its emergence nor why

people follow charismatic leaders at the times they do. Charisma presents itself as

equivalent across religion, politics, and business; it appeals to people’s emotions

by presenting a black-and-white world with a particular mission for a group to

accomplish. Charismatic leaders invite their followers to become part of a group,

giving them a sense of belonging and meaning in life. They display immense self-

confidence, convincing their followers to trust in the leader’s judgment. Their

personal attributes allow them to gain non-rational authority, which presents itself

as a mystery to researchers and followers alike. Whether or not that personal

attribute of charisma originates from a divine source, it displays supernatural

aspects that seem to be inexplicable. The phenomenon’s lack of acceptance across

disciplines displays it’s mysterious and complex nature, which is itself a major

obstacle to our forming a clearer understanding of exactly what is at work.

Still, whatever the personal attribute may be, it does not evolve into

charismatic leadership unless some type of crisis arises. Religious leaders deal

with life-and-death crises, often literally dealing with questions of mortality and

existential angst; political leaders normally find an enemy to defeat; and business

leaders are found in organizational crises, sometimes self-inflicted. In all cases,

moving from one crisis to another provides a means of maintaining charismatic

authority and avoiding the routinization that can lead to other forms of leadership.

All of these three organizational structures present their followers with a mission

and a path to achieve it. A crucially important aspect of charismatic leadership is

the leader-follower relationship. Charisma is based in the relationship between

leader and follower, where the follower transfers control and accountability to the

leader, often in a worship-like manner. In itself, the phenomenon is morally

neutral; however, with the non-rational transfer of authority, individual

responsibility follows. And this can be leveraged to achieve good or evil, but

always displays the same unifying nature. Certainly, efforts to incorporate stake-

holder theories of management into any discussion of leadership is valid, but the

focus remains on the actions of the leaders. 61

60

Aberbach, Charisma in Politics, Religion and the Media, 75. 61

See Scott J. Reynolds, Frank C. Schultz, and David R. Hekman, “Stakeholder Theory and

Managerial Decision-Making: Constraints and Implications of Balancing Stakeholder Interests,”

13

Sandberg and Moreman: Common Threads among Different Forms of Charismatic Leadership (R

Published by Via Sapientiae, 2014

Given the possibility for charismatic leadership to be used just as easily for

harm as for good, scholars would be well-advised to spend more time focusing

efforts on educating people in the recognition of the behavioral traits being used

to manipulate followers rather than focusing on the needs of the leader. The

market for texts suggesting that anyone can learn to be charismatic – from Dale

Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People 62

to Olivia Fox Cabane’s

The Charisma Myth: How Anyone Can Master the Art and Science of Personal

Magnetism 63

– feeds on the desire to gain the intangible trait of charisma in order

to be liked and, more importantly, get what we want from others. One much-

publicized set of research has suggested that specific behaviors can be linked

directly to an increase in charisma. 64

However, in each case, experimenters

worked with business executives and their ability to influence other business

executives. Given the fact that behavioral models of leadership theory have been

dominant, it is understandable that those who have had training in such theory

would not only model it in order to convince others, but would also respond to it.

An executive who demonstrated the desired behaviors “skillfully” might be

recognized as “charismatic” since such behaviors had been used to define the trait

itself, thereby creating a vicious circle. More impressive would be repetition of

such studies with varied populations. For now, it is clear anecdotally that few

demonstrate charisma, a trait still so mysterious in its origins, and even less

become charismatic leaders. As such, rather than encouraging people to chase the

dragon of becoming charismatic, it would be much more widely beneficial to

encourage them to recognize the dragon itself, and to respond rationally before

irrationally investing in the dreams of a charismatic leader.

In conclusion, all charismatic leaders need followers that believe and trust in

them and their mission; they emerge in times of societal distress or in suppressed

subgroups of the society; and involve a seemingly supernatural person. The state

is volatile, and, typically, the authority bestowed upon the charismatic leader

dissolves once he or she fails to please his or her followers, perhaps by failing to

maintain inclusiveness of the group, the distinctness of its difference from the

Journal of Business Ethics 64 (2006): 285-301; Thomas Maak and Nicola M. Pless, “Responsible

Leadership in a Stakeholder Society – A Relational Perspective.” Journal of Business Ethics 66

(2006): 99-115. 62

Dale Carnegie, How to Win Friends and Influence People. (New York: Simon and Schuster,

1936). 63

Olivia Fox Cabane, The Charisma Myth: How Anyone Can Master the Art and Science of

Personal Magnetism (New York: Penguin, 2012). 64

Alex (Sandy) Pentland, “To Signal is Human: Real-time Data Mining Unmasks the Power of

Imitation, Kith and Charisma in our Face-to-Face Social Networks,” American Scientist 98

(2010): 210.

14

Journal of Religion and Business Ethics, Vol. 3 [2014], Art. 19

http://via.library.depaul.edu/jrbe/vol3/iss1/19

purported enemy, or the meaningfulness of the mission. Alternately, the end of

societal stressors which allowed the charismatic leader to emerge in the first place

can just as easily remove the influence of charisma in leadership. These

observations are true across disciplines, being found in charismatic religious,

political, and business leaders. Recognizing the similarity of effect across

organizational types, all linking back to the ephemeral nature of charisma itself,

ought to help us move forward with our understanding of this enigmatic concept.

References

Aberbach, D. Charisma in Politics, Religion and the Media. New York: New

York University Press, 1996.

Andelson, J. G. “Routinization of Behavior in a Charismatic Leader.” American

Ethnologist 7, no. 4 (1980): 716-733.

Babcock-Roberson, M., and O. J. Strickland. “The Relationship between

Charismatic Leadership, Work Engagement, and Organizational Citizenship

Behaviors.” Journal of Psychology 144, no. 3 (2010): 313-326.

Barnes, D. F. “Charisma and Religious Leadership: An Historical Analysis.”

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 17, no. 1 (1978): 1-18.

Burke, K. L., and M. B. Brinkerhoff. “Capturing Charisma: Notes on an Elusive

Concept.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 20, no. 3 (1981): 274-284.

Cabane, Olivia Fox. The Charisma Myth: How Anyone Can Master the Art and

Science of Personal Magnetism. New York: Penguin, 2012.

Carnegie, Dale. How to Win Friends and Influence People. New York: Simon and

Schuster, 1936.

Conger, Jay, and Rabindra Kanungo. “Toward a Behavioral Theory of

Charismatic Leadership in Organizational Settings.” Academy of Management

Review 12 (1987): 637-647.

Cray, David, Loretta Inglis, and Susan Freeman. “Managing the Arts: Leadership

and Decision Making under Dual Rationalities.” Journal of Arts Management,

Law and Society 36, no. 4 (2007): 295-313.

15

Sandberg and Moreman: Common Threads among Different Forms of Charismatic Leadership (R

Published by Via Sapientiae, 2014

Dawson, Lorne. Comprehending Cults: The Sociology of New Religious

Movements. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Eatwell, R. “The Concept and Theory of Charismatic Leadership.” Totalitarian

Movements & Political Religions 7, no. 2 (2006): 141-156.

Freud, Sigmund. Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego. Translated by

James Strachey. New York: Boni and Liveright, 1922.

Halpert, J. A. “The Dimensionality of Charisma.” Journal of Business and

Psychology 4, no. 4 (1990): 399-410.

Halverson, Stefanie K., Susan Elaine Murphy, and Ronald E. Riggio.

“Charismatic Leadership in Crisis Situations: A Laboratory Investigation of Stress

and Crisis.” Small Group Research 35, no. 5 (2004): 495-514.

House, R. J. “A 1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership.” In Leadership: The

Cutting Edge. Edited by J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson. 189-207. Carbondale, IL:

Southern Illinois University Press, 1977.

Hunt, James G. (Jerry), and John N. Davis. “Levels of Performance: Multi-Level

Perspectives on Outstanding Leadership.” In Multi-Level Issues in Organizational

Behavior and Leadership. Edited by Francis J. Yammarino and Fred Dansereau.

117-122. Bingley, UK: JAI Press, 2009.

Lepsius, M. “The Model of Charismatic Leadership and its Applicability to the

Rule of Adolf Hitler.” Totalitarian Movements & Political Religions 7, no. 2

(2006): 175-190.

Maak, Thomas, and Nicola M. Pless. “Responsible Leadership in a Stakeholder

Society – A Relational Perspective.” Journal of Business Ethics 66 (2006): 99-

115.

Mumford, Michael D., Samuel T. Hunter, Tamara L. Friedrich, and Jay J.

Caughron. “Charismatic, Ideological, and Pragmatic Leadership: An Examination

of Multi-Level Influences on Emergence and Performance.” In Multi-Level Issues

in Organizational Behavior and Leadership. Edited by Francis J. Yammarino and

Fred Dansereau. 79-116. Bingley, UK: JAI Press, 2009.

16

Journal of Religion and Business Ethics, Vol. 3 [2014], Art. 19

http://via.library.depaul.edu/jrbe/vol3/iss1/19

Mumford, Michael D., Alison L. Antes, Jay J. Caughron, and Tamra L. Friedrich.

“Charismatic, Ideological, and Pragmatic Leadership: Multi-Level Influences on

Emergence and Performance.” The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008): 144-160.

Pentland, Alex (Sandy). “To Signal is Human: Real-time Data Mining Unmasks

the Power of Imitation, Kith and Charisma in our Face-to-Face Social Networks.”

American Scientist 98 (2010): 204-211.

Piovanelli, P. “Jesus’ Charismatic Authority: On the Historical Applicability of a

Sociological Model.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 73, no. 2

(2005): 395-427.

Post, J. M. “Narcissism and the Charismatic Leader-Follower Relationship.”

Political Psychology 7, no. 4 (1986): 675-688.

Reynolds, Scott J., Frank C. Schultz, and David R. Hekman. “Stakeholder Theory

and Managerial Decision-Making: Constraints and Implications of Balancing

Stakeholder Interests.” Journal of Business Ethics 64 (2006): 285-301.

Samnani, Al-Karim, and Parbudyal Singh. “When Leaders Victimize: The Role of

Charismatic Leaders in Facilitating Group Pressures.” The Leadership Quarterly

24 (2013): 189-202.

Simonton, Dean Keith. “Presidential Leadership Styles: How Do They Map on

Charismatic, Ideological, and Pragmatic Leadership?” In Multi-Level Issues in

Organizational Behavior and Leadership. Edited by Francis J. Yammarino and

Fred Dansereau. 123-133. Bingley, UK: JAI Press, 2009.

Smith, P. “Culture and Charisma: Outline of a Theory.” Acta Sociologica 43, no.

2 (2000): 101-111.

Weber, M. On Charisma and Institution Building. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 1968.

Worden, S. “Religion in Strategic Leadership: A Positivistic,

Normative/Theological, and Strategic Analysis.” Journal of Business Ethics 57,

no. 3 (2005): 221-239.

Yukl, Gary. “A Retrospective on Robert House’s ‘1976 Theory of Charismatic

Leadership’ and Recent Revisions.” The Leadership Quarterly 4, no. 3 (1993):

367-373.

17

Sandberg and Moreman: Common Threads among Different Forms of Charismatic Leadership (R

Published by Via Sapientiae, 2014

Copyright of Journal of Religion & Business Ethics is the property of Journal of Religion & Business Ethics and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.