Review Of Theories Of Charismatic Leadership In Management And Politics

Table of contents:

Video: Review Of Theories Of Charismatic Leadership In Management And Politics

Video: Review Of Theories Of Charismatic Leadership In Management And Politics
Video: Charismatic Leadership Theory 2024, March
Review Of Theories Of Charismatic Leadership In Management And Politics
Review Of Theories Of Charismatic Leadership In Management And Politics
Anonim

The concept of charismatic leadership has become a kind of re-birth of the theory of leadership traits, or rather an even earlier version of it - the theory of the "great man", as it points to a unique quality of a leader called "charisma".

This concept was known in ancient Greece and is mentioned in the Bible. The traditional understanding of the term assumed that the individual is destined to lead people, and therefore endowed "from above" with unique qualities that help him in the implementation of his mission.

Max Weber [1] was the first to draw serious attention to the phenomenon of charisma, believing that obedience can come from rational considerations, habit, or personal sympathy. And, accordingly, he identified three types of management: rational, traditional and charismatic.

According to Weber, "charisma" should be called a quality bestowed by God. Due to this quality, a person is perceived by others as gifted with supernatural characteristics.

M. Weber refers to charismatic qualities as magical abilities, a prophetic gift, etc., and a charismatic person is a person who is capable of influencing people with great emotional strength. However, the possession of these qualities does not guarantee domination, but only increases the chances for it.

The leader relies on a mission that can be addressed to a particular social group, i.e. charisma is limited to this group. In order for followers to recognize the qualities of a leader in a leader, he must clearly argue his demands, prove his own skills and demonstrate that obedience to him leads to certain results.

Followers in his theory are assigned only a passive role, and all decisions are formed "at the top".

Religious concept of charisma

Representatives of this movement pointed out that Weber borrowed the concept of charisma from the vocabulary of early Christianity. In particular, he refers to R. Zoom and his "Church Law", dedicated to the history of Christian communities, whose leaders, presumably, possessed charisma. The ideas of these leaders were perceived by their followers as a direct guide to action, as the only true truth. Here Weber also introduced another idea of R. Zoom, about the direct contact between teacher and student without the mediation of ideas and laws [2].

The "religious" approach (K. Friedrich, D. Emmett) criticizes the removal of the initially theological concept of charisma outside the confines of religion, as well as indifference to the issues of leadership spirituality and morality. As a result, either the incompatibility of the spheres of religion and politics is affirmed, or the use of the category of charisma in relation to politics is allowed only to a limited circle of government representatives.

Dorothy Emmet criticizes Weber for not recognizing the value orientation of two types of leaders:

  1. A leader who has “hypnotic” power over others and gets satisfaction from it.
  2. A leader who is able to increase willpower and stimulate followers to self-realization.

The following are the key points of the religious concept of charisma:

  1. A charismatic possesses qualities that were really given to him "from above";
  2. The charismatic personality has an "inspiring" ability to influence people, mobilizing them for extraordinary efforts.
  3. The motive of the leader is the desire to "awaken" morality in other people, and not the desire to become an object of worship.
  4. A leader's abilities depend on his inner qualities, which are distinguished by morality and spirituality.
  5. Charisma has no value.

Thus, in the religious approach, they tend to adhere to the narrow meaning of charisma, attributing this quality to mystical origin.

Development of Weber's ideas.

S. Moscovici complements the concept of M. Weber arguing that with the disappearance of faith in the charismatic, the influence of charisma also weakens.

Charisma itself is embodied in "supernatural" qualities external to society, which doom the leader to loneliness, because, following his vocation, he has to stand in opposition to society.

S. Moskovichi tries to highlight the signs of charisma in the personality of the individual:

  1. Demonstrative action (flirting with the masses, spectacular actions).
  2. The leader proves that he has "supernatural" qualities.

A crisis situation contributes to the manifestation of charismatic qualities in a person. A group of "adepts" is formed around the charismatic, some of whom are attracted by the leader's charm, while others are looking for material benefits. It all depends on the personality of the follower, his suggestibility, susceptibility to influence, as well as on the acting skills of the leader and his understanding of the needs of people.

Moskovichi, indicates the possibility of not only innate charisma, but also its experienced acquisition.

Jean Blondel also points to the crisis as a necessary condition for the emergence of a leader, criticizing Weber for not breaking with the religious origins of the concept of "charisma". Charisma, according to Blondel, is a quality that you can form yourself.

A functional interpretation of charisma.

The "functional" understanding of charisma has also become widespread, implying the study of this phenomenon by searching and analyzing the functions that it performs in the life of society.

A. Willner argues that fundamental changes are made by people who can read the "signs of the times" and find the "sensitive strings" of the masses, so that they can be encouraged to create a new order [3].

According to W. Friedland [4], the probability with which “charismatics” appear is a function of the culture in which the charismatic personality exists. At the same time, in order to actualize charisma, the mission postulated by the leader must be correlated with the social context.

Modernization theories.

The concept of charisma is also used in modernization theories (D. Epter, I. Wallerstein). The charismatic acts as a conductor of social change, and the masses trust him more than their own state, to maintain which this attitude is used, until it achieves its own legitimacy.

Messianic approach.

In this group of theories, the charismatic leader is seen as the Messiah who, with the help of his extraordinary qualities, is able to lead the group out of the crisis.

Pluralistic concept.

E. Shils considers charisma as a “function of need in order” [5]. She not only interrupts the social order, but also preserves and maintains it. That is, the pluralistic concept of charisma combines the approach to understanding charisma as an extraordinary event, with the assumption that charisma is a routine everyday life.

Theorists of this approach (Cl. Geertz, S. Eisenstadt, W. Murphy) attach great importance to the symbolic aspects of politics and the cultural sphere in general. Charisma appears to be a quality that is attributed to individuals, actions, institutions, symbols, and material objects because of their perceived connection with order-determining forces. As a result, it is considered as a characteristic of any type of domination, since it provides faith in the connection of earthly power with a higher one.

Despite the fact that the presence of common qualities in rulers and gods was noticed long ago (for example, E. Kantorovich, K. Schmitt), the pluralistic approach is valuable because it indicates the common roots of their power, the ceremonies and representations through which they exert compulsion.

Psychological theories of charisma.

In psychological theories, the analysis of the psychological and pathological characteristics of the leader's personality became widespread, and the reasons for the appearance of charisma were explained in terms of the neurotic tendencies of people (the sadism of the leader and the masochism of his followers), the formation of mass psychoses, complexes and fears (for example, in the concept of Erich Fromm [6]) …

Artificial charisma concepts.

It is assumed that the emergence of "true charisma" is impossible in modern society. Rather, charisma is created intentionally for political purposes.

K. Loewenstein believes that charisma presupposes belief in supernatural abilities, while in modern society such beliefs are rather an exception, i.e. charisma was possible only in the early periods, but not now.

U. Svatos believes that bureaucratic structures are simply forced to use the "effect of the masses" and "the charisma of rhetoric" to create the emotional support necessary to maintain power.

R. Glassman writes of “fabricated charisma”. [7]

I. Bensman and M. Givant introduce such a concept as "pseudocharistism" [8], meaning by it, produced, artificial charisma, ie. mediated, rationally created.

Domestic researcher A. Sosland notes that charisma is based only on the ability to give the impression of possessing charismatic properties. He identifies a number of behavioral features of carriers of charisma:

  1. Fighting stance, willingness to fight.
  2. An innovative lifestyle.
  3. The sexually mystical aspect of charisma.

Summarizing these properties, A. Sosland deduces the main characteristic of charisma - its transgression, which creates an energy field where everyone who has had contact with the charismatic is attracted.

As a result, the researcher emphasizes that charisma is a kind of unity of image, ideology and proactive action aimed at expanding one's space and influence.

According to G. Landrum, charisma is one of the properties of creative geniuses who are key figures in the innovation process and have two options for acquiring charisma: by birth or through training.

The development of ideas about artificial charisma was influenced by representatives of the Frankfurt school of neo-Marxism (M. Horkheimer, T. Adorno, E. Fromm, G. Markuse, J. Habermas, etc.).

Yu. N. Davydov points out that true charisma is suppressed by the rationality and formalism of modern society.

N. Freik notes that the bureaucracy is not profitable for the emergence of uncontrollable individuals, but at the same time, charisma is necessary for politics, i.e. there is a need for its artificial replacement, which can be controlled.

I. Kershaw argues that charisma is oriented towards destruction, but his merit is rather that he clarifies Weber's point of view, speaking about the presence of a constant craving for authoritarianism in a charismatic leader.

A. Ivy declares that charisma can be taught and gives his recommendations for its development, and also describes the necessary skills of a charismatic leader: active attention, posing a question, reflecting other people's thoughts and feelings, structuring, focusing, confrontation, influence.

More recently, charisma has been characterized as theatrical (Gardner & Alvolio, 1998), and charismatic leadership is the process of managing experience.

Charisma in the media.

R. Ling created the concept of "synthetic charisma", revealing the problem of charisma in the media. The difference between synthetic and artificial charisma is that the first of the concepts implies an understanding of charisma as a media tool. Synthetic charisma is based on dividing society into those who benefit from the election campaign and everyone else. Unlike the former, voters receive only symbolic dividends: a feeling of pride, joy or sadness, a strengthening of a sense of their own identity, etc.

J. Goldhaber created charismatic communication model based onthat television affects emotions more than the mind, i.e. success depends on the personality that the viewer sees on the screen and her charisma. The researcher identified three types of charismatic personality:

  1. The hero is an idealized person, he looks like "what we want", says what "we want."
  2. An antihero is a “common man”, one of us, looks like “all of us”, says the same thing “as we do”.
  3. A mystical personality is alien to us ("not like us"), unusual, unpredictable.

House theory

Theory Roberta House (Robert House) examines the traits of a leader, his behavior and situations conducive to the manifestation of charisma. As a result of analysis of leaders from the religious and political spheres, House revealed traits of a charismatic leader, including :

  1. Need for power;
  2. Self-confidence;
  3. Conviction in your ideas [9].

Leader behavior involves:

  1. Impression management: giving followers an impression of their competence.
  2. Providing an examplethat helps to share the values and beliefs of the leader.
  3. Setting high expectations regarding the capabilities of followers: expressing confidence that a person will be able to solve a problem; creating a vision related to the values and hopes of followers; updating their motivation.

Emphasis is placed on the interaction of the leader with the group. In particular, followers:

  1. believe the leader's ideas are correct;
  2. accept it unconditionally;
  3. feel trust and affection;
  4. are emotionally involved in the fulfillment of the mission;
  5. set high goals;
  6. believe that they can contribute to the success of the common cause.

The charismatic relies on appealing to "ideological goals." They associate their vision with the ideals, values and aspirations of their followers. At the same time, charisma, most often, manifests itself in stressful situations, and it is especially difficult to appeal to ideological goals when the task is routine.

There have been a number of studies that have confirmed House's theory. Thus, House himself and his colleagues conducted research on former US presidents (1991). They tried to test the following hypotheses of House theory:

  1. charismatic presidents will have a high need for power;
  2. charismatic behavior will be associated with efficiency;
  3. charismatic behavior will be more common among recent presidents in relation to presidents from earlier periods of time.

Identifying 31 presidents who have held office for at least two years, they conducted a content analysis of their speeches and studied the biographies of cabinet members. Leadership performance was measured on the basis of assessments made by a group of historians, as well as analysis of presidential decisions.

The study provided evidence to support the theory. The need for power showed a good correlation with the level of charisma of presidents. Charismatic behavior and the frequency of crises were positively associated with their effectiveness. And charismatic leadership has most often been associated with presidents who have held office in the recent past.

In 1990, P. M. Podsakof f and colleagues asked subordinates to describe their manager using a questionnaire. Followers trusted the boss, were loyal and motivated to do extra work or take responsibility from those managers who clearly articulated a vision for the future, modeled desirable behaviors, and had high expectations for their subordinates.

House's theory has been criticized, citing the fact that it defines charismatic leadership in terms of results and does not pay attention to how it is reflected in the perception of people. It turns out that people without charisma can be as effective as charismatic leaders.

J. Kotter, E. Lawler and others believe that people are influenced by those who have qualities that they admire, who are their ideal and who they would like to imitate.

B. Shamir, M. B. Arthur (M. B. Arthur) and others. interpret leadership as a collective process, which is based on the tendency of followers to identify with the group and value their belonging to it. A charismatic leader can enhance social identity by linking the follower's beliefs and values to group values and collective identity. High group identification means that the individual puts the needs of the group above his own and is even ready to sacrifice them, which further enhances the collective values and norms of behavior.

A leader's charisma is enhanced by his own involvement in achieving collective goals, a willingness to take risks. The charismatic emphasizes the symbolic nature of the activity, thanks to which the contribution of the employees receives intrinsic motivation.

Transformational leadership

Bernard Bass ( Bernard Bass) , while creating his theory of transformational leadership, expanded the concept of a charismatic leader to include business leaders [10].

Transformational leadership is based on the influence of the leader. The leader paints a picture of change, encourages followers to pursue it.

The components of the transformational leadership theory are: the ability to lead, individual approach, intellectual stimulation, "inspiring" motivation, involvement of others in interaction, in which the leader and group members contribute to mutual growth.

The development of transformational leadership involves the formation of the basic characteristics of the management style (visibility and availability of the leader; creation of good working groups; support and encouragement of people; use of training; creation of a personal code of values) and analysis of the stages of the process of changing the organization.

E. Hollander (E. Hollander) believes that leadership based on emotional outburst obliges to have a certain power over followers, especially in times of crisis.

And M. Hunter, confirming Hollander's opinion, deduces six characteristics of a charismatic leader:

  1. energy exchange (the ability to influence people, charge them with energy);
  2. mesmerizing appearance;
  3. independence of character;
  4. rhetorical ability and artistry;
  5. a positive attitude towards admiration for your person;
  6. confident demeanor.

Attributive theory

Conger and Kanungo's theory is based on the assumption that followers attribute charismatic characteristics to a leader based on their perception of his behavior. The authors identify features that increase the likelihood of attributing charismatic characteristics [11]:

  1. self-confidence;
  2. pronounced management skills;
  3. cognitive abilities;
  4. social sensitivity and empathy.

Jay Conger proposed a four-step model for charismatic leadership:

  1. Assessing the environment and formulating a vision.
  2. Communication of vision through motivating and persuasive arguments.
  3. Building trust and commitment through personal risk, unconventional competencies, and self-sacrifice.
  4. Achieving vision.

The theory of charismatic leadership cannot be assessed unambiguously at the moment. Many consider the theory too descriptive, not revealing the psychological mechanisms of the formation of charisma. Moreover, the original concepts of charisma, such as Weber's and the religious concept, generally take the concept of charisma outside the framework of science, since they interpret it as something supernatural that defies explanation. Attempts to describe charisma turn into a simple enumeration of the personal qualities and abilities of a leader, which leads us not to understand charisma itself, but to the theory of traits, which preceded the concepts of charismatic leadership.

Much attention in this group of concepts is paid to the concepts of "vision", "mission", which the leader conveys to the followers with the help of certain behavior, which also shifts the focus from the personality of the leader and his uniqueness to his behavior.

There is a lot of controversy about the value coloring of charismatic leadership, its constructive or destructive role, which seems rather strange. Of course, if we are talking specifically about the formation of charisma among political and organizational leaders, then we really should be wary of negative consequences. However, if we try to investigate the phenomenon of charisma as such, we need to abandon its value assessment.

It is also interesting that many researchers of charisma speak of a crisis as a necessary condition for the manifestation of this quality. In this case, they again turn not to the personality and its qualities, but to the situation in which leadership can manifest itself as such. As a result, everything comes to the conclusion that it is not charisma that determines whether a person will prove himself a leader in a given situation, but the situation determines the necessary qualities for a leader.

Functional interpretations of charisma face the same problem, but their benefit lies in the specific indication of the dependence of charisma on the social context. It turns out that charisma is not some kind of stable quality, charisma is rather the characteristics of a person that are most suitable for a given situation at a given moment.

Some pluralistic concepts point to the importance of rituals, symbols, etc. in the formation of charisma, i.e. they don't even talk about behavior, but about external attributes.

Finally, later theories are shifting towards understanding charisma as a personality trait that can be formed intentionally, in opposition to theories that view charisma as a unique heavenly gift. Here the question is much more complicated, because, before forming any quality, one must understand what this quality implies by itself. And any theorist who understands charisma as a gift from heaven can object to the coach of charismatic leadership, pointing out that he teaches people certain skills, but they are not charisma.

It turns out that charisma turns into an unnecessary and unnecessary term that is not able to describe what it is intended to describe. Its relationship with the term "leadership" is also becoming a problem, it is not clear whether it is possible to personify a leader and a charismatic, whether it is possible to understand leadership and charisma as identical phenomena, and even when it is specified that leadership is a process, and charisma acts as a quality, one can hardly say that otherwise they are not different.

The most optimal is the understanding of charisma as the ability to lead people, and leadership as the very process of leading. But, unfortunately, even such a definition does not clarify, since we can often call those people charismatic whom we would never follow. We may just like these people, inspire respect, surprise us with their image, but at the same time not cause a desire to follow them. And the issue of separating such phenomena as sympathy, surprise, respect from charisma is also important.

As a result, we can assume that charisma is a kind of collective quality, i.e. it presupposes under itself each time a new set of characteristics that best suits a given, specific situation. For example, in the event of a crisis in an organization, a leader can become a person who knows a specific methodology for overcoming the crisis and is ready to implement it. However, not only knowledge, but also a model of behavior can be specific: in one group this person will be accepted as a leader, in another he will not. Of course, the specific qualities, knowledge and skills of a leader will be complemented by general qualities inherent in any leader, such as oratory, confidence in their goal and mission, etc. Taken together, specific and general qualities that are correctly applied in a specific situation and can be called charisma.

Bibliographic list

  1. Weber M. Economy and society. Berkeley etc., 1978.
  2. Trunov D. G. Psychological mechanisms of the impact of religious preaching // Religion in a changing Russia. Abstracts of the Russian scientific-practical conference (May 22-23, 2002). - T. 1. - Perm, 2002.-- p. 107-110
  3. Willner A. The spellbinders: charismatic political leadership. - L., 1984.
  4. Friedland W. For a sociological concept of charisma // Social forces. 1964. Vol. 43. No. 112.
  5. Shils E. The constitution of society. - Chicago, 1982.
  6. Fromm E. Escape from freedom. - M.: Progress, 1989.-- p. 271
  7. Glassman R. Legitimacy and manufactured charisma // Social research. 1975. Vol. 42. No. 4.
  8. Bensman J., Givant M. Charisma and modernity: the use and abuse of a concept // Social research. 1975. Vol. 42. No. 4
  9. Robert J. House, “A Theory of Charismatic Leadership”, in Hunt and Larson (eds.), Leadership: The Cutting Edge, 1976, pp. 189-207
  10. Bernard M. Bass, “Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations”. - NY.: Free Press 1985, - pp. 54-61
  11. J. A. Conger and R. M. Kanungo (eds.). Charismatic Leadership: The Elusive Factor in Organizational Effectiveness. - San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1988.

Recommended: