Charismatic Leadership: Definition, Ethics, and Effectiveness

Introduction

The concept of the charismatic leader captivates those who study leadership. In part, the appeal of the charismatic leader is that charisma is inherently difficult to identify, quantify, and measure — we simply know it when we see it. Each leader has his or her own personal charisma, which affects his or her ability to guide and motivate the actions of others. Those with strong personalities may be better at motivating, and the result is stronger action. The charismatic leader is also someone who can move the organization beyond the status quo, which hints that part of charisma involves having vision combined with the ability to execute it. This paper explores the idea of the charismatic leader.

Defining Charismatic Leadership

As Yukl notes, the idea of leadership itself is inherently lacking in precise definition, which creates problems for the study of leadership, since there is a gap between the desire for a scientific understanding and the inherent ambiguity of the concept. Ultimately, a leader must exert "intentional influence over other people to guide, structure, and facilitate activities and relationships in a group or organization" (Yukl, 2010). Charismatic leadership can therefore reasonably be assumed to be a leadership style that emphasizes the use of personal charisma in order to achieve these actions and results. A charismatic leader will typically emphasize an emotional reaction in followers. There might be a compelling intellectual case for action, but followers are driven more by the personality of the leader, and by loyalty or reverence for that personality. Charisma is one of the least formal methods by which a leader can achieve desired objectives.

A common definition of charismatic leadership is identified by Conger and Kanungo (1987) as leadership "by the force of personal abilities capable of having profound and extraordinary effects on followers." The charismatic leader is therefore able to have a significant positive effect on the organization simply by force of personality. Whether such a leader also develops excellent systems for implementing his or her ideas is not necessarily relevant — there are charismatic leaders who have left systems to others within the organization, and there are charismatic leaders whose organizational ineptitude ultimately led to failure despite the fervent support of followers.

Understanding what charisma is has been a challenge for both the management and social sciences branches of leadership study. There have been attempts in the social sciences to distill charismatic leadership to the presence of particular traits. These include strong communication skills, the ability to be a positive role model, the ability to motivate, intellectual stimulation, and responsiveness to others (Riggio, 2012). Strong communication skills can be further broken down, since most good leaders of any type will be able to communicate their ideas. The key to the charismatic leader lies in the combination of communication skills and two additional elements — the ability to create intellectual stimulation and the ability to draw a genuine response from others. The charismatic leader understands the emotional motivators of his or her audience and communicates to those triggers, rather than simply conveying plans in a rational manner. Furthermore, the charismatic leader works in a transformative way by using structures that allow followers to think more freely, tapping into their intellectual abilities and putting their minds, as well as their effort, to work for the cause.

Yukl (1999) notes that some weaknesses remain in our understanding of the charismatic leader, including an ongoing struggle with ambiguity as a natural part of the definition. This is only a valid concern from the perspective of an observer who is uncomfortable with ambiguity. In reality, ambiguity is a natural part of human existence and should not be classified as a problem. In the real world, no individual maintains the same level of charismatic power at all times — a charismatic leader might be more compelling one day and less so the next, depending on audience, message, and a host of other variables. This is not necessarily a problem unless one is determined to quantify charisma. Perhaps it is best to accept the inherent ambiguity of both charisma and leadership and move forward.

Another fault that Yukl (1999) identifies is a bias toward a heroic vision of the charismatic leader. This bias likely stems from observer tendencies, but ultimately charisma is something that should attract even those outside the organization. Some charismatic leaders are villains — for example, Ciulla (2003) cites Jim Jones. That example may be somewhat cherry-picked to illustrate the downsides of charismatic leadership, but most people characterized as this type of leader do tend to be cast as either heroes or villains. While Yukl's point is fair and valid, it is possible to find leaders who engender a strong emotional response from their followers without falling victim to the kind of personal worship that often accompanies charismatic leadership. A good example is Fred Smith of FedEx. Smith functions as a charismatic leader, but he typically maintains the focus of the emotional response on the company rather than on himself. From its early days, FedEx built a set of heroic legends about employees who went the extra mile, weaving them into the corporate culture. When people are inspired, it is less by the leader himself than by the company and systems he created. This is certainly a case of charismatic leadership without the accompanying hero worship that Yukl rightly criticizes.

In a sense, there are two main ways to understand charismatic leadership — one based on input and one based on output. The input-based view defines charismatic leadership by the presence of a charismatic leader. If such a leader is present, even if that individual lacks the enthusiasm and communication skills one would normally expect, then there is charismatic leadership. The opposite view defines charismatic leadership more as a situation in which followers idolize or have an emotional response to someone's leadership. The latter opens up the possibility that the leader may not be particularly charismatic as an individual, or may not even be a person at all, but rather a part of the organization's lore. In either case, charisma is much more than simply speaking well — it involves inspiration, emotional response, and motivation on a personal level that goes beyond structures and systems. Measuring outputs for charismatic leadership also goes beyond the numeric indicators that Yukl (2010) identifies, such as revenue, profit margin, and market share. Charismatic leadership is also measured through loyalty, workforce enthusiasm, and other more subjective indicators.

Conclusion

Charisma is a valuable trait for a leader to possess, but the evidence suggests it is not an absolute requirement for leadership effectiveness. The charismatic leader draws on personal force of personality to inspire emotional commitment among followers, and this can be a powerful tool in both transformational and transactional contexts. At the same time, charisma remains inherently difficult to define and measure, and its ethical valence depends entirely on the ends toward which it is directed. Whether one evaluates charismatic leadership by its inputs or its outputs, what matters most is whether the leader achieves meaningful, ethical results — something that can be accomplished with or without charisma as a primary instrument.