visionary leadership

Title

Visionary Leadership

Sub-Title

A practical and conceptual analysis of the contributions of charismatic and transformational

approaches to leadership research in relation to their ability to inform practice within complex

organisational settings.

Abstract

This essay summarises the main focuses of leadership research in the 1980’s and 1990’s, which

given increasingly competitive, deregulated, technology led, globalised business environments

required theories of leadership which emphasises the need for quantum change and cultural

reinvention as a basis for economic success. Thus, the main focus of leadership research during

this period led to the development of charismatic and transformational theories of leadership,

which emphasised change, flexibility, creativity and reinvention at an individual, team and

organisational level as key outcomes of the leadership process. However, these theories of

leadership are not without criticism both in terms of their practical application and the soundness

of the underlying research paradigms. The work of Bass (1985, 1990, 1998), Bass & Avolio

(1985, 1990, 1994, 1995), House (1977), Conger & Kunungo (1987, 1999), Shamir et al,

(1993), Hunt (1996), Yukl (1998, 1999) amongst others is critically appraised in order to

identify the main tenets of transformational and charismatic leadership theory and to critically

evaluate their contributions to leadership research and practice.

Key Words

Leadership, Followership, Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership, Charismatic

Leadership, Full Range Leadership Model, Charisma, Idealised Influence, Inspirational

Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, Individual Consideration, Contingent Reward, Management

by Exception, Laissez-Faire, Empowerment, Multi-Functional Leadership Questionnaire, MFLQ,

Criticisms of Transformational Leadership Theory, Follower Satisfaction, Behavioural

Ambiguity, Behavioural Omissions, Dyadic Relationship, Situational Variables, Negative

Effects, Heroic Bias, Leader Dependence, Attribution Theory of Charismatic Leadership, Non-

Charismatic Leaders, Charismatic Leaders, Self-Concept Theory of Charismatic Leadership,

Personal Identification, Social Identification, Internalisation, Self-Efficacy, Criticisms of

Charismatic Leadership Theory, Nature of Charisma, Charismatic Influence Process, Essential

Behaviours, Facilitating Conditions, Organisational Effectiveness.

Transformational Leadership

The concept of transformational leadership is described in a seminal work by the political

sociologist James MacGregor Burns entitled Leadership (1978). In his work, Burns attempts to

link the roles of leadership and followership. He describes leaders as those people who tap the

motives of followers.

Transactional leadership occurs when leaders set up relationships with followers that are based

on an exchange for some resource valued by the followers. Interactions between the

transactional leader and the followers appear to be episodic, short-lived and limited to that one

particular transaction. A transactional leader balances the demands of the organisation and the

requirements of the people within the organisation.

Transformational leadership is much more complex and happens when people are engaged

together in such a way that leaders and followers encourage one another to increase levels of

motivation and morality. In such situations the aspirations of leaders and followers merge to

become one, (Bass, 1998).

Similarly, (Northhouse, 2001; McKenna, 2000) distinguishes between two types of leadership

styles:

“Transactional leadership refers to the bulk of leadership models, which focus on

the exchange that occurs between leaders and their followers. Managers who

offer promotion to employees who surpass their goals are exhibiting transactional

leadership. The exchange dimension of transactional leadership is very common

and can be observed at many levels in the organisation." (Northhouse P, 2001,

p. 132)

"In transformational leadership the emphasis is on people of vision who are

creative, innovative, and capable of getting others to share their dreams while

Transformational & Charismatic Leadership Page 1

playing down self-interest; and who are able to cooperate with others in reshaping

the strategies and tactics of the organisation…in response to a fast-changing

world (Tichy & Devanna, 1986)… to these qualities could be added the pursuit

of high standards, taking calculated risks, challenging and changing the existing

company structure, with even the potential for the display (when considered

appropriate) of directive tendencies. (Bass, 1990)” (McKenna, 2000, p.383)

Bass (1985, 1998) provides a more expanded and refined theory of transformational leadership

which develops the work of Burns (1978) and House (1977), by giving far more attention to the

behaviour and needs of followers than had previously been given. Bass (1985, 1998) argued that

the principles of transformational leadership could be equally applied to situations where the

outcomes were not positive than those where the opposite was true and describing transactional

and transformational leadership as a singe continuum rather than mutually independent continua.

Bass (1985, 1998) identifies the main characteristics of transformational leadership as; charisma

idealised influence, intellectual stimulation and consideration of the emotional needs of each

follower, (Hunt, 1996).

Fig 1 – Transformational Leadership Continuum

Transformational Leadership Transactional Leadership Laissez-faire leadership- Idealised Influence

(charisma)- Inspirational Motivation- Individual Consideration- Intellectual Stimulation

- Contingent Reward- Management By Exception –

Active- Management By Exception -

Passive

- Non-transaction/Non Leadership

[Source: Adapted from Northouse P, 2001, p.136; Bass B, 1998, p.7-9]

In developing his model of transformational leadership Bass (1985) built upon earlier

charismatic literature and it is not surprising that House’s (1977) model of charismatic

leadership is often mistakenly identified as an archetype of transformational leadership. Weber

(1947) describes charisma as a special personality characteristic that gives a person superhuman

or exceptional powers and is reserved for a few, is of divine origin, and results in the person

being treated as a leader. In addition to displaying certain personality characteristics, charismatic

leaders also demonstrate specific types of behaviours:

they are strong role models for the beliefs and values they want their followers to adopt,


they appear competent to their followers,

they articulate ideological goals which have moral overtones,

they communicate high expectations for followers, and they exhibit confidence in

follower’s abilities to meet these expectations. The impact of this behaviour is to

increase followers’ sense of competence and self-efficacy, which in turn increases their

performance,

they arouse task-relevant motives in followers that may include affiliation, power or

esteem.

Fig 2– Charismatic Leadership CharacteristicsPersonality Characteristics Behaviours Effects on FollowersDominantDesire to influence

ConfidentStrong Values

Sets strong role modelShows competence

Articulates goalsCommunicates high expectationsExpresses confidenceArouses motives

Trust in leader’s ideologyBelief similarity between leader and follower

Unquestioning acceptanceAffection towards leader

ObedienceIdentification with leaderEmotional involvementHeightened goalsIncreased confidence

[Source: Adapted from Northouse, 2001, p.133; Hunt 1996, p.189-190]

Hunt (1996) provides a clear synopsis of the differences between Bass’s (1985) theory of

transformational leadership and the earlier work of (Burns, 1978; House, 1977):

Bass (1985) emphasised an expansion of the followers’ portfolio of needs and wants with

a firm focus on the need for growth, development and self-actualisation,

Bass (1985) allowed for positive and negative transformations, that is transformations

that lead to organisational failure or ethically undesirable outcomes,

Bass (1985) unlike Burns (1978) does not view transformational and transactional

leadership as opposite ends of the same continuum, but views transformational leadership

as higher order (extraordinary) leadership which goes beyond the transactions found in

everyday management,


Bass (1985) considers that transformational leadership consists of four factors; idealised

influence (or charisma), individual consideration, inspirational motivation and intellectual

stimulation. Thus charisma is an important element of transformational leadership but

unlike House’s (1977) theory is not considered to be sufficient in itslef,

Bass (1985) considers that transactional leadership behaviours are based on two

dimensions namely, contingent reward and management-by-exception.

Explanation of Transformational Leadership Behaviours

Bass’s (1985, 1990, 1998) theory of transformational leadership identifies four dimensions of

transformational leadership behaviour, namely; idealised influence (or charisma), individual

consideration, inspirational motivation and intellectual stimulation.

Charismatic leadership (CL) or Idealised Influence (II) describes leaders who act as strong

role models for followers. Followers identify with these leaders and want very much to emulate

them. These leaders usually have very high standards of moral and ethical conduct can be

counted on to do the right thing. They are deeply respected by followers, who usually place a

great deal of trust in them. They provide followers with a vision and a sense of mission.

"Transformational leaders behave in ways that result in them being role models

for their followers. The leaders are admired, respected and trusted. Followers

identify with the leaders and want to emulate them; leaders are endowed by their

followers as having extraordinary capabilities, persistence, and determination.

The leaders are willing to take risks and are consistent rather than arbitrary. They

can be counted on to do the right thing, demonstrating high standards of ethical

and moral conduct." (Bass B, 1998, p.5)

Inspirational Motivation describe leaders who communicate high expectations to followers,

inspiring them through motivation to become committed to and a part of the shared vision in the

organisation. In practice, leaders use symbols, clearly communicated expectations and emotional


appeals to focus the group members’ efforts to achieve more that they would in their own self-

interest. This type of leadership enhances team spirit.

"Transformational leaders behave in ways which motivate and inspire those

around them by providing meaning and challenge to their followers' work. Team

spirit is aroused. Enthusiasm and optimism are displayed. Leaders get followers

involved in envisioning attractive future states; they create clearly communicated

expectations that followers want to meet and also demonstrate commitment to

goals and the shared vision." (Bass B, 1998, p.5)

Intellectual Stimulation includes leadership that stimulates followers to be creative and

innovative, and to challenge their own beliefs and values as well as those of the leader and the

organisation. This type of leadership supports followers as they try new approaches to issues. It

promotes followers thinking things out on their own and engaging in careful problem solving and

reasonable risk taking. (Northouse, 2001; Hunt, 1996)

"Transformational Leaders stimulate their follower's efforts to be innovative and

creative by questioning assumptions, re-framing problems and approaching old

situations in new ways. Creativity is encouraged - there is no public criticism of

individual members' mistakes. New ideas and creative problem solutions are

solicited from followers, who are included in the process of addressing problems

and finding solutions. Followers are encouraged to try new approaches, and their

ideas are not criticised because they differ from the leader's ideas." (Bass B, 1998,

p.6)

Individual Consideration describes leaders who provide a supportive climate in which they

listen carefully to the individual needs of followers. “Leaders act as coaches and advisors while

trying to assist individuals in becoming fully actualised. These leaders may use delegation as a

means to help followers grow through personal challenges.” (Northouse, 2001, p.138)


Bass’s (1985, 1990, 1998) theory of transformational leadership identifies two dimensions of

transactional leadership behaviour, namely; contingent reward and management by exception of

which they are two forms active and passive.

Contingent Reward describes behaviour which supports an exchange process between leaders

and followers in which effort by the followers is exchanged for specific rewards. For this

behaviour to be successful the leader identifies what needs to be done and negotiates agreement

with followers on what the rewards will be for achievement of the task(s) or compliance with

organisational vision/mission.

Management by Exception (MBE) describes behaviour, which is concerned with the detection

and correction of errors. The active form of MBE is characterised by a leader who walks the job

and continually checks up on followers and provides feedback leading to corrective action,

which prevents mistakes or deviations occurring. The passive form of MBE is characterised by a

leader who takes no corrective action until mistakes have occurred.

The final dimension of leadership behaviour is Laissez Faire Leadership; this is recognition by

Bass (1985, 1990, 1998) that some leaders adopt a totally ‘hands-off’ approach, give no

feedback to followers, abdicate responsibility for decision making, make little effort to help

followers satisfy needs showing “passive indifference to the task and subordinates”, (Yukl,

1998, p.326)

A Full Range Model of Transformational Leadership

(Bass 1985, 1990, 1998; Bass & Avolio 1994) claim that fundamental to understanding the

concept of transformational leadership is an appreciation that every leader displays each of the

above leadership factors to some extent. An optimal leadership profile resulting in commitment

to organisational change and reinvention is illustrated in fig 3 on page 7. The horizontal active

dimension is self-evident, the vertical dimensions are based on empirical evidence. The third

dimension (Depth) represents how frequently a leader displays a particular style of leadership.


Fig 3 – The Full Range Model of Transformational Leadership[Source: Adapted from Bass, 1998, p.8]

The leader with an optimal transformational profile infrequently displays laissez faire (LF) leadership and leadership predicated on management by exception (MBE-P, MBE-A) or contingent reward (CR) and frequently uses styles of leadership associated with the (4Is of Transformational leadership) ie: Idealised Influence (II) or (Charismatic Leadership (CL)), Inspirational Motivation (IM), Intellectual Stimulation (IS) and Idealised Consideration (IC).


LF

MBE -P

MBE -A

CR

4Is

Effective

Ineffective

ActivePassive

Frequency

Criticisms of Transformational Leadership Theory

The recent ascendancy of models of charismatic and transformational leadership place a strong

emphasis on emotions, values and the importance of symbolic behaviour on the part of the leader

in order to communicate new found meaning to followers and to facilitate self-sacrificing

behaviour in the pursuit of supposedly shared objectives. In summary the transformational and

charismatic leadership theories of Burns (1978), Bass & Avolio (1985, 1990), Tichy &

Devanna (1986, 1990), House (1977), Conger & Kanungo (1987) amongst others provide

conceptual frameworks aimed at explaining how a leader is able to provide exceptional influence

in order that followers commit to difficult objectives, make self-sacrifices and achieve beyond

their initial expectations.

Whilst all of the above researchers describe the positive aspects of these theories Yukl (1999)

provides a concise critique of the conceptual weaknesses in these theories. In relation to

transformational leadership theory (Yukl, 1999; Shamir & Howell, 1999) argue that the

research of Bass & Avolio (1985, 1990) which has generated most research data, uses a Multi-

Functional Leadership Questionnaire (MFLQ) to identifying and differentiate between two

distinct types of leadership behaviours, those associated with Transformational Leadership which

include idealised influence (charisma), individualised consideration, intellectual stimulation and

inspirational motivation, and those associated with transactional leadership which includes

contingent reward behaviours and, active and passive management by exception. Yukl (1999)

cites the work of Bass (1996) in arguing that whilst many studies support the proposed

distinction between transformational and transactional behaviour other studies point to a number

of discrepancies and cites research by (Den Hartog, Van Muijen & Koopman, 1997; Lievens,

Van Geit & Coetsier, 1997; Yammarino & Bass, 1990) which provides evidence to suggest

that laissez-fair leadership and passive management by exception form a separate factor rather

than loading on transactional leadership and that positive reward behaviour loads on

transformational factor rather than the postulated transactional factor.


The work of Bass & Avolio (1985, 1990) and Bass (1996) strongly suggests that

transformational leadership is most effective in bringing about individual and organisational

change and facilitating high levels of follower motivation, job satisfaction and performance.

However, Yukl (1999) cites a meta-analytical review by Lowe, Kroeck & Sivasubramaniam

(1996) of 39 studies using the MFLQ which showed that whilst transformational behaviours

correlated positively with follower satisfaction and performance so did transactional behaviours

associated with the use of contingent rewards, although the correlations were weaker and less

consistent.

(Shamir & Howell, 1999; Hunt, 1991; Yukl 1998, 1999) argue that the discrepancies in

research data can be accounted for in terms of the following conceptual weaknesses in the

original theory:

Ambiguity in relation to Transformational behaviours: each of the transformational behaviours

contains diverse components, which makes the identification and categorisation of behaviours

problematic, resulting in high inter-correlations between the behaviours which in turn casts doubt

on their original construction, which was largely inductive in nature and not grounded in theory.

(Shamir & Howell, 1999; Yukl 1999) provides the following examples in support of this

argument;

Individual Consideration; this scale includes both the leadership behaviours of supporting

and developing, which arguably have distinct and different effects on followers. It is

reasonable to treat developing as a core transformational behaviour as it includes

coaching and mentoring which are likely to increase the skills of followers and lead to

increased self-efficacy. However, supporting involves being friendly, helpful considerate

and appreciative of followers which in turn is likely to lead to increased appreciation of

the leader but have little effect on skill development. Such behaviours could be more

accurately categorised as transactional as leader appreciation is exchanged for follower

satisfaction, which does not necessarily result in increased performance.

Intellectual Stimulation is characterised by a leader causing a follower to question their

beliefs, look at a problem in another way and risk themselves in its solution. The key


issue here is that the theoretical perspectives of Bass & Avolio (1985, 1990) do not

provide a clear framework for what the leader needs to do in reality to influence the

cognitive processing of followers in order to engender creativity, (Yukl, 1999)

Idealised Influence is a difficult behavioural construct to define examples may include,

strong emotional expression of beliefs, emphasising the importance of followers’ beliefs

and/or core competencies, actions consistent with espoused beliefs (role modelling), and

emphasising the importance of mutual trust. However, idealised influence is also

characterised by attributed charisma (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Bass, 1996) which is

an outcome of the leadership process determined by followers rather than an observable

leadership behaviour. To complicate the picture further many of the observable

behaviours associated with Idealised Influence could also be associated with

Inspirational Motivation.

Ambiguity in relation to transactional behaviours: transactional leadership is characterised by

leader-subordinate exchange (Bass & Avolio, 1985, 1990; Burns 1978), according to (Shamir

& Howell, 1999; Yukl, 1998, 1999) the theory fails to make a definitive link between the

exchange process and transactional leadership behaviours. Thus, transactional leadership can be

regarded as “a diverse collection of (mostly ineffective) leadership behaviours that lack a clear

common denominator” (Yukl, 1999, p.289).

Contingent Reward behaviours are characterised by an exchange process eg exchange of

financial rewards for desired follower behaviour, providing recognition to subordinates

etc. Whilst the former is more clearly an example of transactional leadership the latter

could also be considered a construct of transformational leadership behaviour leading to

increased efficacy of followers.

Active Management By Exception (MBE-A) is defined by leadership behaviour which is

concerned with actively identifying mistakes or enforcing procedures to avoid mistakes –

in essence MBE-A is concerned with exercise of managerial control. The MFLQ scale

items do not measure what the leader actual does to rectify the mistake and the inference

is that this is done primarily by negative reinforcement. (Yukl, 1999; Shamir & Howell,

1999) argue that the active rectifying of mistakes could equally be argued to be consistent


with transformational leadership behaviours especially if the emphasis is on the positive

reinforcement and follower development.

Passive Management By Exception (MBE-P) is defined by leadership behaviour which

waits until the performance of subordinates is so poor that it is effecting the operational

efficiency of the organisation and/or work team before responding to them (Bass &

Avolio, 1990), (Yukl, 1998) argues that this is a reactive behaviour which does not in

itself involve an exchange process. Additionally, Yukl (1999) argues that MFLQ scale

items fail to describe how the leader deals with problems and do not measure the use of

contingent punishment/negative reinforcement which in reality is an important exchange

process.

Omission of Important Behaviours: according to Yukl (1999) core transformational behaviours

at the dyadic level should include inspiring (infusing work with meaning), developing

(enhancing follower skills and self-confidence/efficacy), and empowering (providing significant

voice and discretion to followers). He goes on to argue that at a group level transformational

behaviours should include facilitating agreement about objectives and strategies, facilitating

mutual trust and co-operation, and building group identify and efficacy.

“Since the theory deals primarily with dyadic processes, it is not surprising that

there is better coverage of transformational behaviours at the dyadic level than at

the group and organisational level. Inspiring and developing are well represented

in the MFLQ. However, important empowering behaviours such as consulting,

delegating, and sharing of sensitive information are not directly represented in the

MFLQ. Bass (1996) has contended that transformational and transactional

leadership can be either directive (autocratic) or participative, but this is a weak

argument for excluding behaviours that seem so directly relevant to the influence

process underlying transformational leadership. Participation and delegation

involve internalisation when feelings of ownership for a decision link it more

closely to a follower’s self concept and self worth.” (Yukl, 1999, p.290)


Overall most theories of transformational leadership emphasise a dyadic relationship between

leader and followers and are not conceptualised to explain the leader’s influence over work

teams and associated process including: how work is organised and resources utilised to meet

objectives, how inter-group relationships are facilitated, how group processes are reviewed, how

mutual trust and co-operation amongst group members is engendered, the extent that group

members identify with the group, how resources are procured and used, and how external

relations between the group and the wider organisational environment are developed and

maintained, (Yukl, 1998, 1999; Shamir & Howell, 1999).

Insufficient Specification of Situational Variables: (Bass & Avolio, 1985, 1990; Bass, 1996,

1997, 1998) argue strongly that transformational leadership theory can be applied in all situations

and that the outcomes are largely the same. (Yukl, 1998) cites the research of (Bass, 1985,

1996; Pawar & Eastman, 1997; Pettigrew 1988) in suggesting that situational variables may

moderate the effect of transformational leadership on followers. Shamir & Howell (1999) cite

the research of (Bass, 1995, 1996; Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Bommer, 1996) in suggesting that

such variables may include; an unstable environment, an organic structure as opposed to a

bureaucracy, an entrepreneurial culture, and the dominance of boundary spanning units over a

technical core. Due to the high inter-correlations between transformational behaviours the

MFLQ does not provide a valid mechanism for testing the effects of situational variables on the

effectiveness of transformational leadership.

Insufficient Identification of Negative Effects: Transformational leadership theories of Bass &

Avolio, 1990; Bass, 1996, 1997, 1998; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Kouzes & Posner, 1987) do not

identify any specific negative effects of transformational leadership. (Yukl, 1998) citing the

research of Harrison (1987) argues that followers can be transformed to such a high degree of

emotional involvement in their work that they can easily become burnt out in an attempt to

constantly meet the highly idealised expectations which form the basis of the leaders original

vision. According to Conger (1989) the liabilities of transformational leadership have been

largely overlooked, probably as a consequence of such leaders being viewed as such a positive

force, but makes the important point that the dyadic nature of transformational leadership make it

more likely that a dependent or counter-dependent relationship between leader and follower


results. (Shamir & Howell, 1999; Conger, 1989) state that at an organisational level the

emergence of multiple transformational leaders with differing, often competing visions can result

in role ambiguity and conflict amongst followers. Yukl (1999) cites research by Porter &

Bigley (1997) which indicates that where strongly transformational leaders are identified with

specific organisational sub-business units, this can invoke strong cultural attachment to the needs

of the organisational substructure, and this can be detrimental to the overall performance of the

organisation.

Transformational leadership has a heroic bias: given the central importance of idealised

influence (charisma) in developing a transformational vision, which encourages self-sacrifice

and exceptional performance amongst followers. This can be argued to be a projection of the

leaders needs onto followers and characteristic of a process which at best could be described as

transactional and probably more accurately described as managerial manipulation leading to

increased control. Thus, this perspective views follower performance as dependent on the leader

and assumes that given a particular context an individual with the prerequisite skills required to

influence the work team can be found. An alternative perspective would view ‘heroic’

leadership as the ability to engender shared problem solving in an attempt to engender

organisational adaptability to changing environmental stimuli. Whilst according to (Yukl, 1998,

1999) the transformational leadership theory proposed by Burns (1978) would support the latter

perspective more than most, all theories of transformational leadership would benefit from a

more explicit description of the leadership process which takes into account the importance of

shared leadership within groups.

Yukl (1998) provides a thoughtful summary in relation to the contribution of transformational

leadership theory in contributing to an overall understanding of the leadership process and states:

“The distinction between transformational and transactional leadership was useful

in the 1980’s for focussing more attention on important aspects of leadership that

had been neglected previously, but some researchers have come to regard it as a

general theory that can explain leadership in any context. Relying on a simplistic


two-factor model to interpret complex phenomena is always risky, and the end

result may be to limit rather than increase understanding.” (Yukl, 1998, p.341)

Charismatic Leadership

One of the earliest theories of charismatic leadership in organisations was developed by House

(1977), in order to explain leadership in terms of a set of testable observable processes. His

theory argued that not only were certain leadership behaviours associated with charisma but also

certain personality traits and situational variables, (Conger, 1999). These are summarised in

fig 4.

Fig 4 - House’s (1977) – Charismatic Leadership TheoryPersonality Traits Charismatic leaders are likely to have a strong need for power, high self-confidence and a strong

conviction in their own beliefs.Observable Behaviours Charismatic leaders are likely to model desirable behaviours and readily engage in behaviours

deigned to impress followers and reinforce their own competence. Charismatic leaders are likely to articulate appealing visions, which are rooted in the shared

ideology and core competencies of the group, and which provide a mechanism for meeting the aspirational needs of their followers.

Charismatic leaders are likely to communicate high expectations to their followers whilst simultaneously signalling their belief in the competence of their followers to realise the stated expectations. This behaviour reinforces the attainability of the leader’s expectations.

Charismatic leaders are likely to reinforce motivational forces relevant to the needs of followers and the context such as; recognition of achievement in complex challenging environments requiring innovation, personal risk taking and persistent effort, attention to group processes in tasks requiring group working and shared problem solving in response to followers’ needs for affiliation, need for power in tasks requiring competition.

Situational Variables – Facilitating Conditions An environment which allows the leader to define task roles in ideological terms which will

appeal to the motives and emotional values of followers.

[Source: Adapted from (Yukl, 1998, p.299-300, Hunt, 1996, p.187)]

Attribution Theory of Charismatic Leadership – Conger & Kunungo

(1987)

Conger & Kunungo (1987) developed a theory of charismatic leadership based on the premise

that charisma is an attributional phenomena.


"Thus, charisma [and thus charismatic leadership] must be viewed as an

attribution made by followers. This is consistent with the assumption stated

earlier that leadership is a rational and attributional phenomenon. The leadership

role behaviours displayed by a person make that individual (in the eyes of the

followers) not only a task leader or a social leader and a participative or directive

leader but also a charismatic or non-charismatic leader. The leader's observable

behaviours can be interpreted by his or her own followers. These dispositional

attributes are inferred from the leader's observable behaviour in the same way as

other styles of leadership that have been identified previously (Blake & Mounton,

1964, Fielder, 1967, Hersey & Blanchard, 1977). In this sense, charisma can be

considered an additional inferred dimension of leadership behaviour or an

additional leadership role." (Conger & Kanungo, 1999, p.48)

According to the theory follower attribution of leadership charisma is determined by the leader’s

behaviour, skill and the situation, (Yukl, 1999). Conger & Kunungo (1987, 1999) developed a

questionnaire known as the ‘C-K scale’ based on the variables in their charismatic theory.

According to Shamir & Howell (1999) their validation studies indicated moderately good

support for the overall measure of charismatic behaviour and the inter-correlations amongst the

sub-scales were much lower than for (Bass & Avolio’s, 1985, 1990) multi-functional leadership

questionnaire. Thus, suggesting that the charismatic behaviours had been clearly and distinctly

defined by the C-K scale. Fig 14 summarises the characteristics of the main components and

variables relating to Conger & Kunungo’s (1987, 1999) theory of charismatic leadership.


Fig 5 Conger & Kunnungo’s (1987) Theory of Charismatic Leadership

Leader Traits and Behaviours Charisma is likely to be attributed to leaders who articulate an achievable, ideologically appealing

vision, which is highly discrepant from the status quo. Charisma is likely to be attributed to leaders who behave in an unconventional and innovative

manner to achieve the vision, which often involves modelling desirable, value based behaviours at great personal risk to the leader.

Charisma is likely to be attributed to leaders who make great personal sacrifices in order to achieve goals. Given that trust is an important component of charisma, followers are likely to have more trust in a leader who is motivated by the values and ideology inherent in the vision than in self-serving behaviours.

Charismatic leaders are enthusiastic, confident and often posses expert power, but they are careful not to intellectually distance themselves from their followers.

Charismatic leaders are extremely effective communicators and are exceptionally good at articulating the shortcomings associated with the status quo in order to build an idealistically appealing picture of an attainable future state. (Followers are more likely to attribute charisma to leaders who use persuasion and idealistic appeal than those who exercise authoritarian power).

Charismatic leaders tend to be able to make a realistic assessment of the environment as a basis for developing a vision.

Influence Process The primary influence process is that of personal identification, which stems from the needs of

followers to emulate and please the leader – this can in extreme cases lead to idolisation. Thus, leader approval becomes a measure of followers’ self-worth.

Leadership approval is expressed in terms of praise and recognition of follower accomplishments, which in turn provides further motivation to behave in accordance with the leaders’ expectations.

As new follower behaviours become socially validated, the values underlying these behaviours become internalised and previously held values are discarded, as they viewed as no longer supporting the new behavioural norms.

Facilitating Conditions/Situational Contingency Follower disenchantment with the status quo – charismatic leadership is more likely during times

of crisis or great change. (However, in the absence of an identifiable crisis a charismatic leader may still be able create follower disenchantment through the strength of the vision, or even by precipitating a crisis or potential threat – as the impact of unconventional strategies is greater when followers perceive that conventional approaches will no longer be effective).

[Source: Adapted from (Yukl, 1998, p.302-303, Hunt, 1996, p.187)]

According to (Conger & Kunnungo, 1999) the leadership behaviours involved in the process of

moving organisational members from an existing status-quo towards the achievement of long-

term goals may be represented in terms of a three stage model, leading to outcomes at an

Organisational, Group and Individual (Follower) Level which reinforce followers' attributions of

charismatic leadership.


In the first stage the leader critically evaluates the existing situation or status quo. Deficiencies

in the status quo or poorly exploited opportunities in the environment lead to the formulation of

future goals. The leader will need to assess the inclinations, the abilities, the needs and the level

of satisfaction with the present state experienced by followers.

The second stage is concerned with the formulation and articulation of goals, in this stage the

leader will need to develop and communicate a powerful, engaging and realistic vision in order

to define an idealised but achievable future state. The third stage is concerned with the leader

demonstrating to his/her followers how the future goals inherent in the vision can be achieved.

Within this staged module of the influence process Conger & Kanungo (1999) distinguished at

each stage between the behaviours associated with charismatic and non-charismatic leaders.

"This model, however, nicely simplifies and approximates this dynamic process

[leadership] and allows us to more effectively construct the differences between

charismatic and non-charismatic leadership. The reader should simply keep in

mind that, in reality, a leader is constantly moving back and fourth between the

stages or engaging in them simultaneously." (Conger & Kanungo, 1999, p.49)


Fig 6- A Staged Model of Charismatic Leadership

LEADER BEHAVIOUR OUTCOMESStage 1: Evaluation of Status Quo (Present State)

Stage 2: Formulation and Articulation of Organisational Goals

Stage 3: Means to Achieve

Organisational or Group Level Outcomes: High internal cohesion Low internal conflict High value congruence High consensus

Individual (Follower) Outcomes In relation to the leader

Reverence for the leader Trust in the leader Satisfaction with the leader

In relation to the task Work group cohesion High task performance High level of empowerment

Assessment of environmental resources/constraints and follower needs

Effective articulation

Realisation of deficiencies in status quo

Formulation of environmental opportunities into a strategic vision

Effective articulation of inspirational vision that is highly discrepant from the status quo yet within latitude of acceptance

By personal example; risk taking; and counter-cultural empowering, and impression management practices, leader conveys goals, demonstrates means to achieve, builds follower trust, and motivates followers.

[Source: Conger J A & Kanungo R B, 1999, p.40]


Fig 7 - Attributes of Charismatic & Non-Charismatic Leaders (Conger & Kanungo, 1999, p.51)

Non-Charismatic Leaders Charismatic LeadersStage 1: Evaluation of Status Quo (Present State)Environmental sensitivity

Relation to status quo

Low need for environmental sensitivity to maintain status quoEssentially agrees with status quo and strives to maintain it

High need for environmental sensitivity to change the status quoEssentially opposes status quo and strives to change it

Stage 2: Formulation and Articulation of Organisational GoalsFuture Goals

Likeableness

Articulation

Goals not discrepant from status quo

Shared perspective makes him/her likeable

Weak articulation of goals and motivation to lead

Idealised vision that is highly discrepant from status quoShared perspective and idealised vision make him or her likeable and worthy of identification and imitation.Strong and/or inspirational articulation of future vision and motivation to lead.

Stage 3: Means to achieveBehaviour novelty

Trustworthiness

Expertise

Conventional, conforming to existing norms.Disinterested advocacy in persuasion attempts.Expert in using available means to achieve goals within the framework of the existing order.

Unconventional or counter-normativePassionate advocacy, incurring great personal risk and cost.Expert in using unconventional means to transcend the existing order

Influence StrategyPower base usage

Positional power and personal power (based on reward and/or expert power, and liking for a friend who is a similar other).

Personal power (based on expert power; respect and admiration for a unique hero).

A Self-Concept Theory of Charismatic Leadership – Shamir, House

& Arthur (1993)

(Shamir, House & Arthur, 1993) developed earlier charismatic theories of leadership in

order to more adequately explain why charismatic leaders are able to influence followers so

that they are motivated to transcend their own self-interest for the sake of the organisation.

This theory is based on the self-concept theory of motivation proposed by Shamir (1991), the

assumptions underpinning this theory as cited by (Thompson & McHugh, 1995) are that:


Humans are not only goal orientated but also self expressive. They choose to spend

time in situations that allow them to express their dispositions, attitudes and self-

conceptions.

People are motivated to maintain and enhance their self-esteem and self-worth. This

is reflected in that, ‘both competence standards and cultural values are internalised

into the self-concept in the form of evaluative standards’

‘People are motivated to retain and increase their sense of self-consistency’. ‘In a

sense, the self concept is an ideology that people attempt to express and validate in

their behaviour’

‘Self-concepts are composed, in part, of identities’. ‘People derive meaning from

being linked to social collectives through their identities

‘Self-concept related behaviour is not always related to clear expectations or

immediate and specific goals’ They may be motivated by faith and ‘the imagined

possibilities of self’. (Shamir, 1991, p.411-415 as cited by Thompson & McHugh,

1995, p.308)

Hence, general job motivation is hypothesised to be determined by the extent to which an

individual’s self-concept is congruent with their current job and its situational context. Job

related identities are viewed as central to self-concept but other identities such as national,

ethnic, religious and family identities need also to be acknowledged. (Shamir, 1991 as cited

by Thompson & McHugh, 1995). According to (Shamir et al, 1993) the factors that enable

charismatic leaders to exert a motivational influence over followers are:

Personal Identification

As with Conger & Kunungo (1987), Shamir’s et al, (1993) theory recognises that for some

followers personal identification with a charismatic leader may occur. (Yukl, 1998;

Northouse, 2001).

Social Identification

Shamir’s et al., (1993) theory differs from other charismatic theories of leadership in that it

acknowledges that social identification in terms of defining oneself in terms of membership

of a group and/or position in a wider social system is more important than personal


identification. When social identification is strong, individual members will be prepared to

put the interests of the group above individual needs and make self-sacrifices in order to

achieve group objectives and maintain group norms. Over a period of time such behaviours

result in the strengthening of shared values and the development of core competencies and a

shared culture.

Internalisation

Shamir et al., (1993) view internalisation as an essential process in charismatic leadership,

essentially charismatic leaders either influence follower’s to embrace new values, or more

commonly increase the salience of existing follower values and link these to task objectives,

(McKenna, 1995). If leaders are able to articulate organisational goals and/or task objectives

in ideological terms which reflect the values of their followers, then attainment of such

objectives become a mechanism for followers to express their values and social identities,

thus, motivation is increased as self-concept is made congruent with the identities of the job

and the situational context, (Shamir, 1991). This may ultimately result in followers viewing

their work role as inseparably linked to their self-concept, and will undertake that role

because it represents who they are. (Yukl G, 1998)

Self-Efficacy

Shamir et al., (1993) view the self-efficacy of followers, as the self-directed belief and

competence to attain difficult task objectives based on an ability to autonomously construct

new meaning from existing structures of professional and social knowledge. Collective self-

efficacy refers to the “perception of group members that they can accomplish exceptional

feats by working together”, (Yukl G, 1998, p.306). Charismatic leaders develop self and

group efficacy by communicating high expectations to followers, expressing belief in

followers ability to attain them and by celebrating achievement.

Facilitating Conditions

Shamir et al., (1993) identify the following facilitating conditions:

Motivational effects of leadership are likely to occur when the leaders vision is

congruent with existing follower values and personal identities.


The emergence of a charismatic leader is more likely if the organisation has a vision

which can be linked to the core values and personal identities of followers.

Charismatic leadership is more likely to occur in situations where tasks are

unstructured and where performance objectives are difficult to establish and outcomes

of work difficult to measure.

According to Shamir et al (1993) whilst crisis conditions are not a prerequisite for

charismatic leadership it is more likely to occur when the survival of the organisation

is at stake, as such situations favour a leader who is able to apply unconventional

thinking in developing a strategy to ensure survival and a new adaptive relationship

with the environment as a new culture is forged.

Fig 8 Comparison of Charismatic Leadership Theories on Explicit Features(Source: Summarised from (Yukl, 1998, p.309)

Attribute House (1977) Conger & Kunungo, (1987, 1999)

Shamir et al., (1993)

Influence ProcessPersonal Identification Yes Yes YesValue Internalisation Yes Yes YesSocial Identification No No YesEnhanced Self-Efficacy Yes No Yes

Leader BehavioursInnovative Visioning Yes Yes YesUnconventional Behaviour No Yes YesImpression Management Yes Yes YesSelf-sacrificing and personal risk taking No Yes YesModel Behaviour(s) to imitate Yes Yes YesShow confidence in followers Yes Yes YesEnhance team identity No No NoPower Sharing No No Yes

Facilitating ConditionsCrisis or disenchantment Yes Yes YesComplex, significant task Yes No Yes


Criticisms of Charismatic Leadership Theory

Shamir & Howell (1999) and Yukl (1998, 1999) both provide insightful critiques relating to

the conceptual and practical liabilities of charismatic leadership and may be summarised as

follows:

Ambiguity about the nature of Charisma: Yukl (1999) cites Bryman (1993) in arguing that

all theorists offer a different definition of the nature of charisma and the associated processes

of charismatic leadership. Conger & Kunungo (1987, 1999) argue that the attributions of

charisma are determined jointly by the leader, followers and the situation. Whereas, House

(1977) and Shamir et al., (1993) define charismatic leadership in terms of how the leader

influences follower attitudes and motivation, regardless of whether followers consider the

leader to be extraordinary.

Ambiguity about the Underlying Influence Processes: Conger & Kunungo (1987) emphasise

the importance of personal identity as the primary mechanism of influence. However,

Conger & Kunungo (1999) argue that whilst in the early stages of what is essentially a

dyadic relationship personal identity is the primary mechanism of influence, as the

relationship develops internalisation becomes an important influencing factor. Whereas,

Shamir et al., (1993) emphasise social identification, self-efficacy and internalisation, as

well as personal identity as influence processes.

Overemphasis on Dyadic Processes: As with transformational leadership theory, charismatic

leadership theories are usually conceptualised at the dyadic level and group processes are not

considered to be contingent variables.

Ambiguity about Essential Behaviours: (Shamir & Howell, 1999; Yukl, 1998, 1999) argue

that whilst the charismatic leadership behaviours associated in their recent theory of

charismatic leadership (Conger & Kunungo, 1999) are consisted with their earlier research

comparing charismatic to non-charismatic leadership, (Conger & Kunungo, 1987).

Whereas, the theory proposed by Shamir et al., (1993) includes a set of behaviours derived

from House’s (1977) theory but also some borrowed from transformational theories. Yukl

(1999) goes on to argue that the link between the behaviours and the explanatory processes


are not always clear and that some of these behaviours seem easier to justify on the grounds

of leadership effectiveness than any sound conceptual link to charisma.

Insufficient Specification of Facilitating Conditions: According to (Shamir & Howell, 1999;

Yukl, 1998, 1999) contextual variables are especially important to charismatic leadership,

because the characteristics of exceptional leadership are very rare and seem to be highly

dependent of exceptional circumstances. (Conger & Kunungo, 1999) argue that charismatic

leadership is more likely to occur under conditions of uncertainty, when the organisation is in

crisis, when tasks are complex or poorly defined and when tasks have ideological

components which can be related to the organisation’s mission and shared vision. (Yukl,

1999) argues that more empirical research is required to identify the conditions which

promote charismatic leadership, which in turn would increase the predictive value of such

theories.

Ambiguity about the Implications for Organisational Effectiveness:

“Charismatic leadership implies a radical change in the strategy and culture of

the organisation, which may not be necessarily appropriate. When people give

substantial power to a leader with an appealing vision of a better future, the

power is often misused, [this is what some writers term the dark side of

charisma], while the vision remains an empty pipe dream. Polarisation of

organisational members into supporters and opponents can paralyse the

organisation with gridlock in the face of crisis requiring immediate action.

Charismatic leaders often fail to plan for a competent successor, resulting in a

new crisis when they depart.” (Yukl, 1999, p.298)

There has been little research to directly assess the practical implications of charismatic

leadership in organisations. According to Yukl (1999) even though proponents acknowledge

the ‘dark side’ of charisma, the theories would benefit from research leading to conceptual

and practical clarity in relation to the conditions under which charismatic leadership is

necessary or desirable.

Summary


Transformational and charismatic leadership theories have dominated the leadership research

agenda in the 1980’s and 1990’s whilst they have undoubtedly provided a timely focus on the

role of the leader during times of change and the behaviours which may facilitate cultural

renewal and reinvention in an attempt to achieve competitive advantage within today’s

overcrowded, globalised markets. It is worth remembering that essentially they are

behavioural models, which suffer from many of conceptual and practical liabilities inherent

in earlier style approaches to leadership research such as; failure to adequately explain how

leadership behaviour leads to specific leadership outcomes that is a lack of consideration of

intervening variables and an implication that change can be achieved through the application

of transformational leadership behaviours alone. McHugh & Thomson (1995) cite Stogdill's

(1974) review of leadership research in arguing that:

"In view of the complexity of leadership behaviour and the variety of

situations in which it functions, a conditional and multivariate hypothesis

seems more reasonable than a simplistic, bipolar view of leader follower

relationship [which is a central tenet of style research" (Stogdill, 1974, p.407

in McHugh & Thomson, 1995, p.289)

References

Bass B M & Avolio B J, 1990, The implications of transactional and transformational leadership for individual, team and organisational development, Research in organisational change and development, 4, p.231-272

Bass B M & Avolio B J, 1993, Transformational leadership: A Response to critiques, In Chemmers M M & R Ayman (Eds), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions, p.49-98, San Diego, CA: Academic Press

Bass B M & Avolio B J, 1994, Improving Organisational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership, London: Sage Publications

Bass B M & Avolio B J, 1995, MFLQ Technical Report, Palo Alto, CA: MindGarden

Bass B M, 1985, Leadership and performance beyond expectations, New York: Free Press

Bass B M, 1990, From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision, Organisational Dynamics, 18, p.19-31

Bass B M, 1990, Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research: New York: Free Press

Bass B M, 1995, The revised MFLQ 5X, Palo Alto, CA: MindGarden


Bass B M, 1996, A new paradigm of leadership: an inquiry into transformational leadership, Alexandria, VA: US Army Research Institute for the Behavioural and Social Sciences in Yukl G, 1999, An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories, Leadership Quarterly, Summer 99, 10(2), p.285

Bass B M, 1997, Does the transactional-transformational paradigm transcend organisational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52, p.130-139

Bass B M, 1998, Transformational Leadership, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Bass B M, 1999, Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership, European journal of work and organisational psychology, 8(1), p.9-32

Bennis W G & Nanus B, 1985, Leaders: The strategies for taking charge, New York: Harper Row

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

Conger J A & Kanungo R, 1987, Towards a Behavioural Theory of Charismatic Leadership in Organisational Settings, Academy of Management Review, 1987, Vol 12 No 4, p.637-647

Conger J A & Kanungo R, 1999, Charismatic Leadership in Organisations, Sage Publications, London

Conger J A, 1989, The charismatic leader: Behind the mystique of exceptional leadership, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Conger J A, 1999, Charismatic and transformational leadership in organisations: an insiders perspective on these developing streams of research, Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), p.145-179

Den Hartog D N, Van Muijen J J & Koopman P L, 1997, Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ, Journal of occupational and organisational psychology, 70, p.19-34

House R J, 1976, A theory of charismatic leadership in Northouse P G, 2001, Leadership Theory and Practice, Chapter 8, London: Sage Publications

House R J, 1977, A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership in Hunt J G & Larson L L (Eds), Leadership the cutting edge, Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press in Yukl G, 1998, Leadership in organisations, New York: Prentice Hall

Hunt J G & Conger J A, 1999, Overview, Charismatic and transformational leadership: Taking stock of the present and future (part II), Leadership Quarterly, 10(3), p.331-334

Hunt J G, 1991, Leadership: A New synthesis, London: Sage Publications

Hunt J G, 1996 (2nd Ed), Leadership: A New synthesis, London: Sage Publications


Kouzes J & Posener B, 1987, The leadership challenge, San Francisco CA, Jossey Bass publishers

Kouzes J & Posener B, 1988, Leadership Practices Inventory II, San Francisco CA, Jossey Bass

Kouzes J & Posener B, 1997 (2nd Ed), The leadership challenge, San Francisco CA, Jossey Bass publishers

Lievens F, Van Geit P & Coetsier P, 1997, Identification of transformational leadership qualities: an examination of potential biases, European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 4, p.415-430

Lowe K B, Kroeck K G & Sivasubramaniam, 1996, Effective correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature, Leadership Quarterly, 7, p.385-425

McHugh D & Thompson P, 1995, Work Organisations: A Critical Introduction, London: Macmillan Business

McKenna E, 1994, Business Psychology and Organisational Behaviour: A Student’s Handbook, Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

McKenna E, 2000 (3rd Ed), Business Psychology and Organisational Behaviour: A Student’s Handbook, Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Northouse P G, 1997, Leadership - Theory and Practice, London: Sage Publications

Northouse P G, 2001, Leadership Theory and Practice (2nd Ed), London: Sage Publications

Pawar B S & Eastman K K, 1997, The nature and implications of contextual influences on transformational leadership: A conceptual examination, Academy of management review, 22, p.80-109

Podsakoff P M, MacKenzie S B & Bommer W H, 1996, Transformational leader behaviours and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust and organisational citizen behaviours, Journal of Management, 22, p.259-298

Porter L W & Bigley G A, 1997, Motivation and transformational leadership: Some organisational context issues in Yukl G, 1999, An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories, Leadership Quarterly, Summer 99, 10(2), p.285

Shamir B & Howell J M, 1999, Organisational and contextual influences on the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership, Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), p.257-283

Shamir B, 1991, The charismatic relationship: Alternative explanations and predictions, Leadership Quarterly, 2, p.81-104


Shamir B, House R J & Arthur M B, 1993, The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A Self-concept theory, Organisational Science, 4, p.1-17 in Thomson P & McHugh D, Work Organisations – A Critical Introduction, London: Macmillan

Stogdill R M, 1974, Handbook of leadership: a survey of literature, New York: Free Press

Tichy N M & Devanna M A, 1986, Transformational Leader, New York: Willey

Tichy N M & Devanna M A, 1990, Transformational Leader (2nd Ed), New York: Willey

Weber M, 1947, The theory of social and economic organisations in Northhouse P G, 1997, Leadership - Theory and Practice, London: Sage Publications

Yammarino F J & Bass B M, 1990, Long-term forecasting of transformational leadership and its effects amongst naval officers in Clark K E & Clark M B (Eds) Measures of leadership, p.151-170, West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America in Yukl G, 1998, Leaders in Organisations, NJ: Prentice Hall

Yammarino F J, Spangler W D & Bass B M, 1993, Transformational Leadership and Performance: A longitudinal investigation, Leadership Quarterly, 4, p.81-102

Yukl G, 1998 (4th Ed), Leaders in Organisations, NJ: Prentice Hall

Yukl G, 1999, An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories, Leadership Quarterly, Summer 99, 10(2), p.285


visionary leadership

Documents