Charismatic Leadership

The following article is an edited extract from a recent essay which was submitted as a MBA course requirement on charismatic leadership. It speaks to the importance of a number of traits which are essential for successful mission- based leadership.

A recent study of Charismatic Leadership required an exploration of the influence of world leaders. It involved assessing Peter R Drucker’s statement “The three most charismatic leaders in this century inflicted more suffering on the human race than almost any trio in history: Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. What matters is not the leader's charisma. What matters is the leader's mission.”.

World history has been led, and continues to be led, by leaders, men and women, whose charismatic leadership has generated remarkable accomplishments in successfully inspiring, driving and transforming positive social disturbance and development. We only need to look to some Christian leaders, historical examples of transformational leaders, who strived to achieve better outcomes for the Mission which they served. Joan of Arc, Lincoln, Martin Luther King, and Mandela, for example, were influential leaders who placed the mission at the core of their leadership and thus generated demonstrable influence over their communities or nations.

The use of the Greek word charisma itself, is attributed to sociologist Max Weber when describing a leader’s influence on followers’ perceptions. He recognised that such leaders presented with an initial magnetism to followers and arose “…in times of psychic, physical, economic, ethical, religious, [or] political distress” (Weber, 1968).  Aristotle had much earlier provided substance to the actual mechanisms which ethical leaders brought to their role. He maintained that such leaders creatively gained the confidence of followers by inspiring their emotions (pathos), accompanied by followers’ appreciation of the leaders’ moral character (ethos), and by the leaders themselves using coherent reasoning (logos). 

Renowned leaders such as the Dalai Lama, Barack Obama, Mother Theresa, and Aung San Suu Kyi are examples of people who displayed the highly positive socialised charismatic leadership qualities noted above.  

Understanding how Hitler, Stalin and Mao can be seen as charismatic leaders seems, however, counter- intuitive. Weber noted that at times of significant insecurity, leaders “can appeal as more confident, decisive and ultimately more competent” (Weber, 1968) so, power of personality created a strong and determined force which was important in such times. Indeed, some research suggested that the perils associated with following charismatic leaders may lead to blind attraction with “megalomaniacs and dangerous values”. (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993).
Hitler, following Germany’s humiliating defeat in World War I, emphasised to the destressed German people their uniqueness or superiority as he set about creating the new and desirable social category of “the master class.” His failed mission, however, led to the deaths of more than 50 million people. Stalin’s ruthless leadership which appealed to socialist revolutionary fervour (a viable classless society) and to Russian nationalism, was devoid of philosophical content. His regime lasted almost 25 years and was accompanied by a reign of terror and totalitarian rule which resulted in the estimated deaths of some 15- 20 million people. Mao’s infamous experiments in social engineering included the Great Leap Forward (1957) and the Cultural Revolution (1966-76) were variously cited for causing the deaths of between 30- 40 million people. 
Ethical socialised charismatic leadership, in stark contrast, however, is marked by collectively motivated, non-exploitive and egalitarian leaders who are consensual in decision- making, are open to criticism, and remain morally upright and as virtuous as human nature permits in seeking the best outcomes for followers (Howell & Avolio, 1993) (Bass & Avolio, 1994).  In seeking the common good , such leaders remove self-interest and empower followers to achieve their best (Greenleaf, 1977).

One study suggested that socialised charisma is closely aligned with feminine, nurturing personality traits and negatively associated with criticalness, aggression, masculinity and domination (House & Howell, 1992). A later study noted that the transformational [socialised] charismatic leaders rated significantly higher on feminine traits of nurturance and rationality and scored significantly lower on masculine attributes such as dominance and aggression (Ross & Offermann, 1997). Indeed, transformational leaders demonstrate adaptability, insightfulness and are less forceful than their non-transformational, personalised charismatic counterparts. Followers had greater affection for, and identified with, the leaders, implicitly believing in their vision and trusting in the mission (House & Howell, 1992). Noteworthy contemporary female leaders such as New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, Shani Dhanda (Disability Rights Advocate), and Malala Yousafzai (the youngest Nobel Peace Prize winner in history), have all attracted worldwide recognition for their compassionate leadership earmarked by paradoxical traits: ‘kindness and strength’; ‘steely and compassionate’ (Craig, 2021); ‘authentic and passionate’ (Smyth, 2021).

Charismatic leadership theory posits that personalised charismatic leaders also convert the wants, ideals, and ambitions of followers from self- interests to communal interests. In this light, the tyrannical and transactional leadership of Hitler, Stalin and Mao may share some similarity with that of highly ethical transformational leaders. The intentions of both personalised and socialised charismatic leaders are to generate, if not necessarily inspire, change. However, while the autocratic leadership regimes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao shared common intersecting features, most notably the use and abuse of power, it caused followers to stop listening over time, and the mission failed. Followers grew dissatisfied with the requisite and unquestioning obedience which undercut their growth, self- reliability, enterprise, and control. While the initial attraction provided some intrinsic significance to followers’ lives, growing suspicions gave way to disillusionment, then cynicism, and finally, rejection. 
Conversely, with the socialised charismatic leadership typified by Lincoln, Churchill, Gandhi and more recently, Ardern, Dhanda and Yousafzai, change was transformative for both individuals and society more broadly. The association between followers’ self- concepts and the leaders’ vision was accompanied by greater personal commitment of followers to the leader and the mission. Resultantly, there was increased social affinity and value acceptance leading to high commitment among followers in making sacrifices for the collective mission’s success and the greater good for all. 

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs suggests that personalised charismatic leadership appeals to followers’ basic needs, often with short- term goals. In contrast, socialised charismatic and transformational leaders plan for long-term sustainable behavioural shifts, by influencing the internal motivation of employees, appealing to their self-fulfilment needs and self-actualisation (Srithongrung, 2011).  Resultantly, leaders who are transformational in their practices achieve greater successes (Bass & Riggio, 2006). If mission valence if high, employees will generate higher performance as they relate to, and are driven to immerse themselves in the organisation’s mission. The more appealing a mission is to employees, the higher the mission valence, and the greater their work motivation (Rainey, 1999).

Socialised charismatic leaders, then, demonstrate qualities which are closely aligned to mission-based leadership. They are grounded in the mission and purpose of the organisation. Leaders and employees will be explicitly connected to the goals of the organisation and take co-responsibility for achievement of those aims. Collectively, the leader and employee will share common ideals and purpose and will be motivated by seeking to achieve outcomes for each other. Ideally, the leader explicitly inspires loyalty, effort and commitment from followers (Steenbarger, 2015).

Mission-based leadership focuses on the social context of an organisation, the mission, not on those to whom it dictates. Through social interactions, mission-based leaders will connect with their followers through the belief that there is collective-purpose to overcome challenges and drive meaningful outcomes. Mission-focussed, socialised charismatic leaders will rouse performance through inspiration not self-interest. These leaders can be powerful agents of social change (Fiol, Harris, & House, 1999).  Indeed, such charismatic leadership will transform organisational culture to inspire employees to provide their diverse skills and work together across multidisciplinary teams in delivering strategic outcomes centred around the organisation’s mission (Deloitte, 2022). 

Contemporary organisations require mission-based leaders for developing and maintaining a strong culture, exemplified by a unified set of beliefs, supported by strategy and structure. Strong culture will clearly underpin the leader’s expectations of employee behavioural and situational responses; in turn, employees will trust their leaders’ vision and will be rewarded for supporting the organisation's values. The leadership traits of such successful contemporary leaders will build strong organisational culture through persuasion, and transparent and effective communication, and will positively influence commonality of values and goals to achieve organisational success (Spahr, 2016).
Socialised charismatic leadership, where leaders display a deep commitment to shared success will drive organisational effectiveness and successful outcomes. Leaders will be self- assured, well aware of their influence, and they will have appropriate levels of humility and strategic skills necessary to put the organisation and its employees at the centre of their decision making (Ciampa, 2016). For contemporary leaders, gaining a greater understanding of leadership theories is critical for navigating complex organisations through challenging times. Successful leaders will understand that decisions, ethical or unethical, will impact their followers and eventually the social systems that surround them (Shamir et al., 1993).  Effective leaders will spend less time on providing autocratic opinion or direction, and more time on demonstrating that their behaviours and attitudes clearly align with that of the organisation. Morality and purpose [will be] high on the contemporary leader’s radar, and they will instil confidence and trust in their followers’ ability to perform (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 2018).

Certainly, contemporary theories of leadership have steered away from ‘the dark side of leadership’ or the personalised charismatic leadership demonstrated by unethical behavioural practices. Greater significance is placed on moral leadership. Ethical- based approaches to leadership require leaders to deeply understand their social context, to display a greater sense of self-awareness and apply self-regulation in their interactions with their followers. These leaders give priority to developing others to lead and are hopeful, resilient, transparent, and collaborative. In demonstrating these attributes when interacting with others, such leaders will develop effective and positive relationships throughout an organisation (Mazutis & Slawinski, 2008), building trust as an enabler for authentic conversations which in turn, lead to positive outcomes for all.

 
Charismatic leadership, personalised and socialised, has been shown to be a two-edged concept with several overlapping characteristics but nevertheless, with clearly distinguishable attributes. Plainly, and in stark contrast to personalised charismatic leadership, the behaviours of transformational, mission-based, ethical, socialised charismatic leaders are associated with improved follower satisfaction and motivation, accompanying organisational, even societal effectiveness. Charismatic leadership when used to connect and motivate stakeholders cannot be underestimated. Charisma, when used to motivate and influence for the common good and when applied to socialising, connecting, and motivating positive change, is an important skill for mission-based leaders in all contemporary organisations.  

Author: Julie Alibrandi, Director of Operations, Lasallian Mission Services