Características y funciones fisiológicas de la mitocondria

Weber, as described in section 3.2.2, looked at Charisma from a purely sociological perspec-tive. However, this was no longer considered an adequate approach for modern sociologists.

In line with the developments happening in the areas of psychology and psychoanalysis, they demanded not only an appreciation but a deeper investigation of the psychological pheno-mena which are part of charismatic leadership: Which behavioural patterns, motives, and personality and character traits do charismatic leaders share that make them such extraordi-nary leaders? How do charismatic leaders motivate their followers? For them charisma mani-fests itself in one of three ways:

83 Chemers (1997:23–24) points to an additional problem: Perception of leader behaviour is also tainted by the rater’s knowledge of whether or not a group activity was successful. The same problem applies to the evaluation of Individualised Consideration as part of TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP (Chemers 1997:47).

84 Beyer for example (1999a:320) points specifically to the strong influence the human-relations-movement had on the contingency theories.

85 However, for the overall development of leadership research, this necessary search for factors other than personality traits had been a helpful impulse (Bryman 1993:4).

(1) a relationship between an individual (leader) and others (followers) based on deeply shared ideological (as opposed to material) values; (2) an individual who accomplishes unusual feats through the efforts of followers who are exceptionally loyal to the leader, have a high degree of trust in the leader, and are willing to make personal sacrifices in the interest of the leader’s vision and the collective led by the leader; (3) a complex set of personal characteristics and/or behaviors of an individual that leads to the

above outcomes. (House 1999:564)

In contrast to Weber, the main focus was no longer on how charisma was anchored in the overall society but rather on how it was anchored within organisations (“organisational charisma” [:564]). Proponents of the different streams of modern charismatic theories focus on different aspects of this definition: either the relationship between leader and followers (definition 1), the outcomes of this relationship (definition 2) or the qualities of the leader (definition 3). For House, the crucial factor is the relationship:

I view organisational charisma as an extraordinary relationship between an individual (leader) and others (followers) [...]. The outcome of this relation-ship is extraordinary accomplishments as a result of the vision and inspira-tional ability of the leader and the loyalty and trust of the followers, their cohesiveness as a collective, and their willingness to make personal sacrifi-ces in the interest of the leader’s vision and the collective led by the leader.

(:564)

Robert House had been researching the area of organisational leadership and manage-ment for many years. In 1971, he developed the PATH-GOAL-THEORY of leadership (House 1971) as a continuation of Evans’ (1970) explanation of path-goal relationships. Evans had stressed the importance of consideration and participative supervision (see Figure 8, page 78) as the means of a leader to convey to subordinates the idea that their higher order needs can be fulfilled. However, this alone would not yet show how this goal can be reached. It needs to be combined with a leader’s initiation of structure to show the path that would lead to the goal (Chemers 1997:45). His expectation was that the combination of these two factors in a leader’s behaviour would render the best results.

However, research did not show clear support for Evans’ theory, so House developed a slightly different PATH-GOAL THEORY and included situational factors: the follower’s ability and personality and the follower’s task, with the latter becoming the main focus in later research concerned with this theory. This was then the foundation on which his first CHARIS

-MATIC THEORY of 1976 (House 1977) was developed.

In light of the later developments, the decision to put the focus of investigation on the job (Is it intrinsically fulfilling or boring? Is it ambiguous or clear and well structured?) seems rather important. Because from this starting point it is a natural conclusion to arrive at TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP, where there is also such a strong focus on making a job intrin-sically fulfilling. What direction would leadership theories have taken, had the personality

and ability of the leader and the follower remained the focus of the studies? One would not—

after countless leadership scandals filling newspaper reports—have had to realise that in spite of extensive discussions about ethical leadership some crucial element seems to be missing in the equation and notice that a stronger focus should have been put on the charac-ter of the leader. If the person and the dignity of the follower had been more of a focus one would have naturally realised for example the danger of misusing a relationship for the purpose of the leader’s goals.

Leadership research can have quite an impact on the direction “fashionable” theories take.

3.3.1.1. Robert House’s 1976 theory of CHARISMATIC L^EADERSHIP

Robert House strikes one as a true scholar, always searching for better explanations, refining his theory, putting out revisions with the clear expectation that his new hypotheses would be tested again and further refined or completely changed. According to his own appraisal, PATH-GOAL-THEORY had only been an antecedent for the later CHARISMATIC THEORY (House 1996:334). Discussions with David Berlew, who was the first to draw a connection between human needs and charismatic leadership (Conger 1989:27), had been instrumental in trig-gering the development of House’s first version of CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP, the first such theory geared toward an organisational setting. Berlew in turn had been a student of David McClelland, who in his theory of personality stressed the role of three big motives driving human behaviour: achievement, affiliation, and power (McClelland 2009; first published in 1987).⁸⁶ Arousal of such motives could substantially enhance a leader’s impact. In House’s words:

From my discussions with him, I concluded that effective leaders also arouse motives that are relevant to particular followers’ tasks. […] As a result of motive arousal, the intrinsic valence of selected behaviors and outcomes is substantially increased. From this line of reasoning, and dis-cussions with Berlew, I developed the theoretical notion that path-goal theory needed to be supplemented with a set of propositions concerning leaders who empower followers and arouse motives to enhance intrinsic

valences. (House 1996:334)

Imagining a leader who acted in such a way, he argued, one would arrive at an image

“likely to be strikingly similar to the stereotypic charismatic leader” (:334). This charismatic leader would show high levels of self-confidence, dominance, a strong conviction in the moral righteousness of his/her beliefs and a high need for influencing others. S/he would engage in role modelling, image building, goal articulation, exhibiting high expectations and at the same time showing confidence in the followers (and as a result influencing followers’ goals),

86 Section 5.3.2.2 will look at the aspect of motivation in more detail.

and in actions that would arouse motives appropriate for the followers’ situations (House 1977:193ff). A crisis, in House’s opinion (and in contrast to Weber), did not constitute a necessary requirement but rather an element encouraging the emergence of charisma. What he did consider essential though was the opportunity to articulate the goal and the possibility to define the role of the follower “in ideological terms that appeal to the follower” (:205). Based on these assumptions he formulated seven propositions,⁸⁷ which he hoped would serve as a basis for research confirming or modifying the theory. True to his own understanding of the role of theory, this first theory of 1976 has since been modified to form the 1993 SELF-CONCEPT

BASED THEORY OF CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP and was further changed by conceptions of value based leadership into the 1996 REVISED PATH-GOAL THEORY OF LEADERSHIP (House 1996). House’s stress on image building is one of the points where he markedly differs from Weber. For House the appearance of accomplishments was sufficient proof for a charismatic leader, whereas for Weber the proof was always the actual accomplishment. It is also a point that is prone to unethical behaviour—no matter how morally righteous a leader considers his/her goals. Image building is much easier than character building, and a leader will have to make a conscious decision to make sure that the image which is developed is consistent with his/her character. Otherwise integrity is lost.

3.3.1.2. The 1993 self-concept based theory of Shamir, House and Arthur

Robert House had described the behaviour which he foresaw a charismatic leader to show and the effects it would have on the relationship between leader and follower. Boas Shamir, coming from the area of social psychology, was not content with just a description of a rela-tionship. He wanted to know what mechanisms could explain these effects. So he compared two psychoanalytic, a sociological-symbolic, and two attributional explanations of CHARISMA

-TIC LEADERSHIP (Shamir 1991b) with a new, self-concept based explanation he had developed together with Robert House and Michael Arthur and which would eventually be published in 1993 (Shamir, House & Arthur 1993).⁸⁸ According to them the complexity of a charismatic relationship could—though not fully, but at least best—be explained if one considered the motivational forces at hand in the formation of the self-concept of human beings.

87 See Appendix 7.1.

88 Psychoanalytic: explanations looking for roots in early childhood experiences and based either on Freudian transference and projection or on narcissistic idealised transference (Kets de Vries 1988:269ff;

1989; see also section 4.4.1.3);

Sociological: psychological explanation of Weber’s model, charisma as a connection to the “symbolic center”, the values and beliefs which each society has;

Attributional: explanations which either explain charismatic qualities as an attribution of followers regardless of a leader’s personality or behaviour (e.g. the “romance of leadership” theory by Meindl et al.

[1985], which considers the attribution of leadership to a member of a group merely a necessary crutch to alleviate the feeling of helplessness of the group [Kets de Vries 1989:241]), or as an attribution by followers based on a leader’s behaviour (Conger & Kanungo 1987).

The main question for Shamir, House & Arthur became: In what ways do charismatic leaders affect the self-concepts of followers to produce the extraordinary outcomes that seem to result from their leadership? They concluded that by expressing organisational goals in ideological terms and relating them to followers’ inherent values, by expressing confidence in the followers and strengthening their worth and efficacy, and by focusing on the collective identity and value system of the followers as a group, the motivational basis of a follower’s self-concept would be activated and would practically automatically result in deepened commitment to the organisation and the organisational tasks (:581).

Two points are especially noteworthy:

1. Their theory is an explanation of the motivational processes happening in a charis-matic relationship, and as such is first and foremost a description of processes, not a prescription for effective behaviour. In their theory they point out that such motiva-tional processes can be used for good or bad:

We believe that these risks should not be neglected, but rather that we need more studies of the nature and effects of charismatic leadership and the conditions under which it produces harmful versus beneficial effects for

followers and collectives. (:582)

2. Their theory is not so much concerned with the dyadic relationship between a leader and a follower, but rather with the effects a leader has on a group of followers. The vision or goal of a leader will only be effective if it taps and reinforces values already inherent in the collective. This is in contrast to Weber, who considers the extraordi-nary personality of the leader to be the basis for unquestioning devotion, or to Conger and Kanungo who stress a vision radically different from the status quo (see section 4.4.1.2).

These two points are important to note, especially since Shamir, House and Arthur have been accused of manipulating followers’ self-concepts through a “process of inner coloni-zation, by which external values (should) become internal ones” (Neuberger 2002:142).⁸⁹ Or—

by stating it a little less accusatory—that their charismatic leaders use the self-concept of followers to accomplish a certain purpose (e.g. Chemers saying that the leaders are effective by “engaging followers’ self-concept” [Chemers 1997:89] and by arousing group focused motives [:63]). However, studying Shamir, House & Arthur’s original concept, one does not find in their explanations the secret recipe a leader should employ to be successful. Rather, it is a description of how, based on motivational theory, leadership situations always and auto-matically influence the formation of the self-concept of followers—up to the point where in

89 Original: “Statt eines äußerlichen Zwangsregimes erfolgt eine innere Kolonialisierung, weil die fremden Werte zu eigenen gemacht werden (sollen).” (Neuberger 2002:142)

the case of a charismatic relationship followers’ self-esteem becomes “contingent on their involvement in the vision and the mission articulated by the leader” (House & Shamir 1993:86).

Indicating the danger of a misuse of a motivational process is not necessarily the same as promoting it. Rather, it is of utmost importance to take the processes and results they de-scribe into account as one key to identify and counteract possible misuses of charismatic relationships (see section 5.3). On the other hand, awareness of such processes does invite misappropriation, especially by ethically unstable leaders preoccupied with their own careers.

Having thus defended the noble intentions of Shamir, House and Arthur’s concept, a cautionary note has to be added, because even though the original concept did not prescribe certain behaviour but rather described processes, Neuberger’s reservations were not com-pletely unfounded. In a later publication Shamir himself talks of the desire to further inves-tigate these “underlying mechanisms that enable transformational leaders to influence followers’ identifications”, i.e. the processes “by which transformational leaders can exert their influence on followers” (Kark & Shamir 2002:68; emphasis EM). It will indeed need a strong ethical character for leaders not to let themselves be tempted into misusing their knowledge about such processes. From the point of theological ethics three aspects need to be kept in mind in this regard:

 A leader needs to reflect on his/her intentions when engaging in a charismatic relationship.

 A leader needs to develop a character of integrity to resist the temptation to misuse his/her influence over followers in this process.

 The self-concept is part of the menschenbild a person holds. A leader who is aware of the imago Dei in the follower and the dignity this gives to every person, cannot allow the self-esteem of the follower to become solely dependent on the participation in his/her great vision and mission.