Método para el análisis de proteínas por Western blot

The difference between sociological and psychological explanations of charisma has been alluded to several times. Weber as a sociologist was concerned with charisma as a (rare) phenomenon of society. The newer theories are concerned with organisational charisma.

Some of the tensions that result from these differing outlooks have already been specified in section 4.4.1.1.

Models following Weber, such as Trice and Beyer, would interpret that what one can ob-serve in a charismatic leader is due to innate personality attributes, which cannot be learnt.

Their outlook is on the effect CHARISMATICLEADERSHIP has, not so much on an explanation of

126 On a similar line Den Hartog, Koopman & Van Muijen (1995:42) point to the danger inherent in considering charisma an attribution of the followers: In that case charisma could not really be called a

“component” of TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP any more, but rather needed to be considered one of its

“products”.

the inner workings of charismatic relationships. This is understandable if one’s focus lies in an explanation of phenomena to understand what happened in the past.

In contrast, the outlook of proponents of the newer theories is the future: they want to understand the phenomenon to make it fruitful (meaning: to reproduce it) for organisational settings. Being heavily influenced by the developments in psychology, they do not attribute charisma to special powers any more, but rather locate it “in the relationship between the leader and follower” (Campbell, Ward & Sonnenfeld et al. 2008:556).¹²⁷ House is even more specific:

In actuality the “gift” is likely to be a complex interaction of personal char-acteristics, the behavior the leader employs, characteristics of followers, and certain situational factors prevailing at the time of the assumption of

the leadership role. (House 1977:193)

Chemers describes the change in approach to CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP from Weber through House’s first model to Bass’ description of TRANSFORMATIONALLEADERSHIP. He consid-ers even “Individualised Consideration”, which did not count in Bass’ perception as one of the charismatic-inspirational elements, as charisma—a “charisma for a modern era in which follower needs include growth and independence as well as security and meaning” (Chemers 1997:87).

The third “lens” through which charismatic leadership is often interpreted is the psycho-analytic perspective (for example by Kets de Vries 1988), which explains the dynamics of a charismatic relationship from early life experiences. Proponents of this approach feel that they are thus taking into account not only cognitive but also affective aspects of a leadership situation, explaining the relationship between a leader’s inner workings and his/her current situation (Kets de Vries & Miller 1985:585). Bryman observes that the psychoanalytical approaches tend to evaluate the charismatic relationship in rather pathological terms—which is hardly surprising considering that “psychoanalysis grew out of the examination and treatment of pathological phenomena” (Bryman 1993:39).

What makes for strong emotional attachments exists as much in the need of the “subject” as in the qualities of the “object.” In other words, the person-alities of leaders take on proportions that meet what subordinates need and even demand. If leaders, in fact, respond with the special charisma that is often invested in them at the outset, then they are parties to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course, the qualities demanded have to be present in some

127 Roberts and Bradley’s (1989) approach has not been considered in depth here. In some respects they follow Weber, but have described charisma as a three-layered process, triggered through a collective perception of crisis, substantiated through the strong relational ties between an exceptional leader and followers, but very much dependent on a favourable social structure. They base their explanations on a study where charisma was lost once the social structure in which it was exercised had changed—and thus in fact confirm the key role of the relationship between leader and followers which had not been able to be re-established in the changed social structure.

nascent form, ready to emerge as soon as the emotional currents become real in authority relationships. (Zaleznik & Kets de Vries 1985:126)

It is through the processes of projection, regression, transference and mirror transfer-ence (or counter-transfertransfer-ence) that followers “create” such a leader. Apart from these roots in Freud’s psychoanalytic theory, Erik Erikson’s work on identity provides another source for a psychoanalytic explanation: The leader becomes “a substitute for an underdeveloped ego-ideal” (Willner 1984:53).

4.4.2. “Intention” in a charismatic leader–follower–relationship

The four-step perspective introduced in section 2.3.5.2 might help also in approaching the questions related to the concepts of CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP (see Figure 12). Within this area much of the confusion that reigns is due to proponents of different models mixing these levels and trying to solve the ethical questions within the realm that belongs to empirical studies.

Impression. One grave problem which research into CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP faces is the fact that charisma is an emotionally charged term. In addition, in the mind of the general public charisma often has some kind of mystical attribute, a “magnetic personal appeal” as Kotter (1990:108) calls it. The viewpoint then is not “What is this leader like, what does s/he do?”, but rather “What is my emotional reaction to this person?” One judges on the basis of a prima facie impression and forms an opinion guided by such perceptions. This is what one also sees in popular Christian books about leadership, where charisma is explained in terms of the impression for example Jesus left on his disciples or the crowd following him.

Figure 12: Evaluating CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP

Bligh, Kohles and Meindl (2004:229) have indicated the role of the media as an important player in this aspect of CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP. In our day and age, ghostwriters and the media in general can greatly improve or harm the charismatic impression of a leader on followers (see also Campbell, Ward & Sonnenfeld et al. 2008:566). In socially distant leader-ship situations especially, the development of a charismatic impression can be triggered more than anything else by an emotional answer to an emotionally charged situation.¹²⁸

There have been lists put together denoting external attributes of charismatic leaders, like stature or the quality of their eyes or voice. All these things contribute to the impression a person leaves. However, there is no evidence in research proving or refuting charismatic attributions on these grounds. Felfe points out that it is not known whether there are people with a charismatic disposition who have not become charismatic leaders. Unless this is investigated claims about a charismatic personality profile would not be justified (Felfe 2005:74).¹²⁹ If these impressions are not defined as such and actually separated from the next steps, research results will always lack analytical clarity.

Observation. In the case of CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP observation can measure three areas:

actual behaviour of a leader, the reaction to the behaviour, and the effects that result from a certain behaviour. Depending on the background of a researcher—the “lens” through which s/he looks at data—the measured results will be interpreted.

However, it needs to be noted again that most research about CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP

suffers at least from one of two serious shortcomings:

1. The researchers have not actually measured observations, but rather have asked leaders what they have done. Instead of dependable, objective results one gets only the leaders’ interpretations of their own behaviour—which could be rather different from what an outside observer would have seen had he or she been able to objectively assess the situation.

2. The researchers have asked followers how they perceive their leaders and/or their actions. This time the research results portray the perceptions of followers. These could be formed as much by the followers’ expectations as by actual leader behaviour, and again, the result might be quite different from what an outside observer would have seen (Chemers 1997:109).

128 Bligh, Kohles and Meindl (2004) analysed this process on the basis of presidential speeches after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

129 Original: “Inwieweit die Persönlichkeit oder andere Bedingungen ursächlich charismatische Führung hervorbringen, lässt sich nicht sagen. Es ist beispielsweise nichts über Personen mit einer charismatischen Disposition bekannt, die nicht in entsprechende Positionen gelangen. Erst dann könnte von einem kontextunabhängigen charismatischen Profil gesprochen werden.” (Felfe 2005:74)

Very few studies actually measure and describe the leader or the leadership situation from an outside observer’s position.

Interpretation. It is the different lenses that people wear when they try to explain their ob-servations of the charismatic phenomenon which lead to so many contrasting interpretations (see also Den Hartog, Koopman & Van Muijen 1995):

 Charisma as a phenomenon of society versus organisational charisma.

 Conger and Kanungo explaining changes on an organisational level, versus Shamir, House and Arthur focusing on the personal level (Felfe 2005:26).

 Weber in his early writings (considering charisma a magical gift, an innate personality trait; Wang 1997:20) and also developmentalists like Kets de Vries (1989) or Avolio and Gibbons (1989) (who stress the influence of the socialisation process on a later emer-gence of charisma) versus behaviourists considering abilities and behaviour related to charismatic leadership learnable (Conger & Kanungo 1989c:310).

 The later Weber saying that it was legitimate for a charismatic leader to demand obedience (Wang 1997:30), versus Kets de Vries and Miller (1985) locating such a claim in the narcississtic nature of the leader.

 Conger and Kanungo (1989c:312) and House, Woycke and Fodor (1989:118) promoting training in charismatic leadership behaviour, versus Roberts warning against it because of possible negative effects (Roberts & Bradley 1989:272).

 Beyer (1999a:312) demanding to measure results of change, versus psychologically based models content with measuring the relationship.

 The striving to differentiate between “bad” and “good” charisma.

 Visionary charisma, versus crisis induced charisma.

Intention. Most researchers specify what their approach to the study of charismatic leadership is. The step between observation and explanation can therefore be traced without much difficulty, even though the varied approaches result in a myriad of explanations.

However, the lack of clarity lies in the clear separation of the Intention from the other elements. Willner is right, when she points out that a tool—may it be called a gift, a person-ality trait, an attribution, or a learnt behaviour—can always be used for good or bad (Willner 1984:12). It is not in itself good or bad, ethical or unethical. The crucial element in this regard is the person using the tool. Howell (1989) with her distinction between socialised and per-sonalised charisma tries to address the phenomenon on this level.

In the case of descriptive models not much harm results from a neglect of separating Intention from the other three elements. However, in prescriptive models—like the ones described above—this distinction is of utmost importance. Attempts to attach ethical

questions to the first three points—Impression, Observation and Interpretation—must neces-sarily lead to unsatisfactory results.

Even though Intention is such an elusive and personal aspect, for an ethical evaluation of a model one has to dare to approach it. And even if sometimes one only can speculate about the intentions of a leader, an observation of the leader’s pronouncements, actions, and character will give indications as to his/her underlying intentions. In section 2.3.5 and also in the discussion of Figure 11 (page 110–112) the necessity of looking beyond actions and including the character of the leader in an evaluation has been explained. This does not just apply to an evaluation of TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP, it is equally true for the area of CHARISMA

-TICLEADERSHIP. Does a leader who claims to empower his/her followers really intend for the followers to gain from the relationship, or is the true intent rather an advancement of the leader’s own career? In this whole area of TRANSFORMATIONALLEADERSHIP, the missing distinc-tion between Explanadistinc-tion and Intendistinc-tion is one of the real weak points of the theory (Yukl [2006:250], Khanin [2007], Neuberger [2002] and Tourish [2013] have pointed to this problem).

This aspect will be further developed in sections 5.2–5.3.