Clonaje en el vector pCRTM-Blunt II-TOPO®

Definitions of CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP have undergone many variations. Nevertheless, three streams are particularly influential in the discussions today.

House’s understanding of CHARISMATICLEADERSHIP has been introduced in section 3.3.1 as one of the roots for Bass’ model of TRANSFORMATIONALLEADERSHIP. House attributed CHARISMA

-TIC LEADERSHIP with a “transformational effect” (House & Shamir 1993:86). Bass—the second stream, building on House and Shamir—considers charisma only one, albeit “the most general and important” (Bass 1989:61), component of TRANSFORMATIONALLEADERSHIP. Charisma, in his understanding, does not necessarily lead to transformation: One could be a charismatic lead-er without being transformational, but one could not be a transformational leadlead-er without being charismatic (Bass & Riggio 2006:5; Felfe 2005:36).

Bass distances himself clearly from Weber, whose understanding of charisma he consid-ers “fairly limited” (Bass & Riggio 2006:5). The aspect of “distinctiveness” (see section 4.4.1.1),

121 The above mentioned quote by Bass (1989:57) is exemplary for such a way of proceeding. Neuberger (2002:221), however, is rather critical of this approach. He explains his position with an example from self-perception theory: “Self-perception theory turns the normal chain of arguments around: We do not eat dark bread because we like it, but rather we like it, because we eat it. We observe ourselves exhibiting certain behaviour and then come up with reasonable explanations for this behaviour” (Original: “Die Selbstwahrnehmungstheorie kehrt die übliche Argumentation um: Wir essen nicht Schwarzbrot, weil es uns schmeckt, sondern weil wir es essen, schmeckt es uns. Wir beobachten uns selbst bei bestimmten Verhalten und erfinden dann vernünftige Gründe dafür, dass wir uns so verhalten.”). It would be interesting to find out whether these different preferences in approach are not to a high degree also culturally determined.

which Beyer considered a special strength of the Weberian notion of charisma, Bass as one who wanted to make it useful for a wider setting perceived as especially impedimentary.

Originally, Bass refrained from using the term “charismatic”. The terms “Idealised Influence” and “Inspirational Motivation”—while describing behaviour very similar to what others ascribed to charisma, and what Bass himself later subsumed into the “charismatic-inspirational” aspect of his theory (:5)—did not have the negative connotations the word charisma had received because of destructive examples of charismatic leaders. According to Conger, this choice of words (and building on Burns’ term “transformation”) was one of the reasons for the wide acceptance of Bass’ model.

The term “transformational” is less value-laden than “charismatic leader-ship,” and the values it does convey are positive ones—especially around organizational adaptation and human development. [...] Few managers and executives would see charisma as a necessary quality to be effective in contrast to transformational capability. (Conger 1999:150)

The third very influential stream of CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP today was described by Conger and Kanungo. Their understanding of charisma is closest to Weber (Felfe 2005:61), and yet has had a profound influence in the discussions around TRANSFORMING, TRANSFORMATIONAL

and CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP and their relationship to each other. For Conger and Kanungo charisma can only be understood if one manages “to strip the aura of mysticism from charis-ma and to deal with it strictly as a behavioral process” (Conger & Kanungo 1987:639). As a result, in their “Behavioral Theory of Charismatic Leadership” of 1987 they define it as an attribution of followers toward their leaders. They consider the “set of dispositional attri-butions by followers” and the “set of leaders’ manifest behavior” as “two sides of the same coin” (Conger & Kanungo 1989a:93), because the leaders’ behaviour as an expression of their personality and of their values in interactions with followers (Conger 1999:153) form the basis for follower attributions (Conger & Kanungo 1987:645). They developed a set of 13 hypoth-eses¹²² relating to different aspects of a leader’s behaviour which would contribute to the attribution of charisma. To evaluate charisma they developed an instrument (the “C-K scale of Charismatic Leadership”) which—they claim—strictly measures leadership behaviour and is free from items that could also be interpreted as effects of CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP on followers (Felfe 2005:60). In it, items measuring CHARISMATICLEADERSHIP are assigned to one of the following themes: vision and articulation, environmental sensitivity, unconventional behaviour, personal risk, and sensitivity to member needs.¹²³

122 See Appendix 7.2.

123 The original questionnaire had also items relating to “does not maintain status quo”, but this was later dropped (Felfe 2005:61).

They suggest a 3-step model of CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP, with a charismatic leader distin-guishing himself from “normal” leaders in each step (Conger & Kanungo 1989a:82): Because charisma has a tendency to get lost if the leader is not sensitive toward the environment (Conger 1999:153), the first step would be a critical evaluation of a given situation to be able to correctly assess problems and opportunities. Only after this is done the leader should present his/her vision as a high goal, radically different from the status quo:

The charismatic’s verbal messages construct reality such that only the posi-tive features of the future vision and only the negaposi-tive features of the status quo are emphasized. The vision is therefore presented in clear specific terms as the most attractive and attainable alternative—the aim is to create among followers a disenchantment or discontentment with the status quo, a strong identification with future goals, and a compelling desire to be led in the direction of the goal in spite of environmental hurdles. (:154)¹²⁴

The third step finally would be to build trust in the high goals by demonstrating inno-vative means to achieve the vision and by impression management of the leader through

“personal example, risk taking, and unconventional expertise” (:154). Acting this way, charismatic leaders would—not on the basis of their rank, but rather by their personal idiosyncratic power—“transform their followers” (Conger & Kanungo 1987:644) and function as strong role models.¹²⁵

Crucial for the attribution of charisma as Conger and Kanungo define it would not so much be the success and actual outcome of the proposed change, but rather the unconven-tional steps the charismatic leader would propose and take to reach the goal. Because of the radical changes the vision implies and of the unconventional means the leader adopts, in Conger and Kanungo’s view charisma could never be attributed to an administrator or to a leader who only intended to “nudge the system” (Conger & Kanungo 1989a:84).

Differences in the three modern streams of CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP are therefore found for example in relation to the origin of charisma and to the influence processes between leaders and followers/employees. In terms of the origin, the reason for the differences between the explanations can partly be found in their approach to the topic (see the next section). As for the influence processes, Bass & Avolio are of the opinion that the goal itself, internalised by the follower, can be just as important as the strong leader. Conger & Kanungo emphasise personal identification with the leader—and are in this also closest to Weber’s original thoughts. In other areas, however, the three new models are indeed similar: All three

124 Lepsius (1986) indicates the dangers inherent in articulating a vision in a way which leaves the impression that there is no alternative: He attributes the acceptance of Hitler as a charismatic leader and his rise to power to exactly this way of interpreting the situation in Germany at the time (:62)!

125 Looking at their steps one is strongly reminded of the transformational leader described by Tichy and Devanna (1986:29) a few years earlier. They talk about TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP as “Three-Act-Drama”:

recognising the need for revitalisation, creating a new vision, and then institutionalising the change.

stress vision, inspiration, the role model of the leader, intellectual stimulation, empower-ment, appeal to “higher needs”, high expectations and the promotion of a collective identity (Conger 1999:156). And yet it still seems to be difficult to define the concept in unmistakable terms. Otherwise one can hardly understand why there are still discussions and ever new attempts to distinguish between “good” and “bad” charisma. Or why there are so many different explanations about the role of charisma within TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP. For some researchers of the model, charisma is one characteristic attribute among others of a transformational leader. For Conger & Kanungo however, “charismatic leadership was the most exemplary form that transformational leaders could assume” (:149). And from their point of view this assessment is to be expected, since they include elements in their definition of CHARISMATICLEADERSHIP (e.g. sensitivity to member needs) which Burns and Bass attribute to TRANSFORMATIONALLEADERSHIP.

Thinking about the relationship between TRANSFORMING, TRANSFORMATIONAL, and CHARIS

-MATICLEADERSHIP, the main difference between the models, however, seems to be simply in who they are geared toward—not superficially but in their core: toward the leader with his/her wonderful qualities and results, or toward the followers, who the transforming leader aspires to empower. Yukl talks in this context of “incompatible aspects of the core behaviors for transformational and charismatic leadership” (Yukl 1999:301), making it just about impossible for both to appear simultaneously. If they appear simultaneously, according to Yukl, then this situation is “unstable” (:299), because unlike a charismatic leader, transform-ing leaders will do everythtransform-ing in their power to advance the followers and not their own position.

Some examples can be found of leaders who seem to be both charismatic and transformational, but they are rare. Most of the charismatic leaders did not appear to develop and empower followers in the way one would expect for a transformational leader. Although these leaders are good at managing impressions, a careful examination of their actions usually reveals that they are more interested in enhancing their own power and prestige than in providing selfless devotion to followers and the organisation. (:300)

Yukl (1999:298) also points to studies which conclude that successful leaders—“change agents”—do not necessarily have to be charismatic. “Successful change is usually the result of transformational leadership by managers not perceived as charismatic. The vision is usually the product of a collective effort, not the creation of a single, exceptional leader” (:298). This result becomes understandable on the background of Bridges’ (2003) explanation of the stages people have to go through in a change process: Empathy and sensitivity to the (emo-tional) state of a person and understanding of the losses they have to go through is crucial.

These are characteristics of a transforming leader which often prove more effective than the persuasion and other exceptional abilities a charismatic leader can show off.

Some of the observed problems are located in the research about CHARISMATICLEADERSHIP. Bryman, as early as 1993 (1993:130) and again in a newer publication (Bryman 2011:26), points to a problem area in research about CHARISMATICLEADERSHIP: Generally, the newer researchers have abandoned the notion of charisma as a divine gift, but rather locate it in “the relation-ship between leader and follower” (Campbell, Ward & Sonnenfeld et al. 2008:556). However, leadership research during the first decade of the hype about CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP—in spite of claiming to measure a social phenomenon, a relationship which normally develops over time—concentrated on quantitative research methods. However, if one measures a relationship, interview based research will necessarily render results different from question-naires, or from laboratory experiments, in which such a grown relationship is absent (:558).

Also, results will differ greatly if one measures strategic leadership instead of “just” manage-ment.

Such warning voices are not new. Already in 1984—in the very early stages of the re-newed discussions about CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP—Willner warned against analytical inaccu-racy which would integrate as part of the definition of a charismatic relationship elements that actually promote the appearance of charisma (like the crisis or a charismatic leader’s vision) or elements that would be the consequences of charisma (like revolutionary change) (Willner 1984:10).¹²⁶ There might be less confusion today, if this separation into origin, defi-nition, and consequences had been adhered to in later discussions. However, since Willner’s focus was political and not organisational charisma, her distinctions would probably have proven too rigid for later developments of charismatic theory.