Leadership Research Summary:
• In this study, researchers review prior theory and empirical evidence relevant to the personality characteristics that differentiate charismatic leaders from noncharismatic leaders. Researchers conclude from this review that charismatic leaders in present day complex organizations fit the stereotypical image of supportive, sensitive, nurturing, and considerate leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi or Nelson Mandela, rather than the traditional stereotype of aggressive, demanding, dominant and critical leaders such as Jim Jones or Field Marshall George Montgomery.
• The study then presents a review of research relevant to four traits that theoretically differentiate personalized (self-aggrandizing, non-egalitarian, and exploitive) charismatic leaders from socialized (collectively oriented, egalitarian, and nonexploitive) charismatic leaders.
• Researchers conclude that the personality traits of the need for power, power inhibition, Machiavellianism, authoritarianism, narcissism, self esteem and locus of control are traits that are likely to differentiate personalized from socialized charismatic leaders.
Leadership Research Implications and Findings:
• Given the personality characteristics of personalized CLs specified above, severalimplications can be drawn about their relationship with, and impact on, followers as
well as their consequences for organizations and society. By force of their overwhelming persuasive powers and authority, personalized CLsmay evoke feelings of obedience or loyal submission in followers. Graham (1988) callsthis phenomenon “habituated followership”: followers embrace their subordinate statusso completely that failure to comply with the leader’s request is unthinkable. Thus, incontrast to socialized leaders, personalized leaders undermine the development offollowers’ self-responsibility, self-initiative and self-control.
• It is interesting to speculate on the psychological relationship that exists betweenpersonalized CLs and their followers. It appears that followers are initially attracted
to such leaders based on the appeal of the leader’s vision. Such visions usually implya better state of existence for followers if they become committed to the leader’smovement. Further, participation in the movement gives intrinsic meaning to the lifeof followers: something to live for, to be a part of, and to contribute to, in an intrinsicallysatisfying and meaningful way. (See Shamir, House and Arthur 119921, for a moredetailed discussion of how charismatic leaders appeal to the self-concept and intrinsicmotivation of followers.)
• However, with time and close association with the personalized CL, many of the
immediate followers may become suspicious of the leader’s motives, but remain
committed to the initial reason forjoining the charismatic movement. This psychological
state of affairs results in lingering devotion to the leader together with suspicion and
fear of the leader’s disapproval and possibly fear of physical or psychological harm
from the leader. Thus, some immediate followers may eventually defect from the
movement. To prevent such defections, the leader then turns to the use of threat and
punishment, personal disapproval, threat of social ostracization, and even threat of
physical harm, if it is within the leader’s means. While these notions are speculative,
it appears that this cycle of events has occurred with respect to the followers of BenitoMussolini, Saddam Hussein, Jim Jones, and Fidel Castro.
• What appears to be equally interesting, is that the remote followers of such leaderseither do not become disenchanted with the leader and the movement or do so longafter the immediate followers become disenchanted. This is likely because the immediate LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 3 No. 2 1992followers have first-hand observation of the leader over a considerable period of time, while the remote followers have little direct contact with the leader.The consequence of this scenario is that followers who are initially attracted to leaderson the basis of identification, devotion, and love eventually must be managed by theleader in extremely coercive ways such as threat of imprisonment, physical punishment,or execution. Thus, personalized CL, if left unbridled, can have severe detrimental, evendisastrous, consequences for followers.
• Researchers further contend that when personalized CLs emerge into, or are placed in,positions of leadership within organizations there is grave danger that the power accompanying such positions will be used primarily for the self-aggrandizement of the leader, to the detriment of others. Kipnis (1976) has shown convincingly throughlaboratory experiments, management simulations, and field research, that there arestrong forces that tempt those in power to see themselves as superior to others whomthey lead and to deal with followers in harsh and even inhumane ways when the followersdisagree with the leader’s wishes. He refers to the process by which leaders adopt suchattitudes and behaviors as the metamorphic effect of the possession of power.Hodgkinson (1983) argues that since charisma may have either beneficial ormalevolent effects, we need to first understand the charismatic phenomenon and bewareof its consequences.
• What, then, can be done to harness the positive forces of charismawithout destroying its potential for social gain? The answer appears to lie in the kindof preventative mechanisms that will serve to prevent followers from entering intorelationships with leaders in which the followers are willing to engage in blind obedience,against their own moral values and judgement, to gain the approval of leaders.