The workplace is changing more than ever. Over the last decade, corporations have been reevaluating their priorities and way of looking at their internal structure. Their has been a shift in corporate thought regarding its success. Efficiency and economies of scale where first thought to dictate the success or failure , but recently corporations are realizing that the real answer is not in the product, but rather in the people who work everyday to create that product. Corporations can�t exist without people. How employees view their job regulates how efficient and productive (overall success) that corporation will be. In order to keep their greatest asset, corporations are germinating productivity and efficiency by creating environments that enhance employee creativity and motivation. Paul Allaire, the CEO of Xerox, stated this simply by saying, �To win, we need to find ways to capture the creative and innovative spirit of the American worker.�
Corporations need people, but people also need corporations. Employees are looking for corporations that meet their needs, expectations and goals. By becoming better educated and skilled, the employee places him/herself in a more marketable position. Corporations are fearing their possible loss of good employees and so are stratagizing to keep their good ones while also creating a way to raise the work output of other employees. One way corporations are looking at this challenge is by looking at who is leading these people and who is following this leader.
When asked the question of who is leading in an individual�s place of employment, most employees describe their manager or supervisor. Leaders and managers are two words that people use interchangeably to describe someone in charge (Nur, 1998). Although they are similar in that both implement goals and both motivate workers to reach the goal (Nur, 1998), this is where the similarity end. The first difference is seen in their definitions. Webster�s dictionary describes managers as people who control a movement (Guralnik, 1984), that is, they have a goal that may have been given them by the corporate culture, and they need to herd the people in that direction. Managers do this by recruiting, training and evaluating. Managers recruit people who will easily melt into the corporate culture�s beliefs and attitudes. Employees then get trained into the culture, and their job is specific to the goal. Managers control this movement by evaluating problems and solving them as they arise (internet).
Leaders on the other hand are described by Webster�s as those who lead, or are �guiding heads� (Guralnik, 1984). Leaders do not just control a movement, but rather, they begin the movement. Leaders are not only implementors of a corporate goal, but are also the creators of the goals as well (internet). Leaders don�t necessarily have to recruit like-minded people to fulfill their goal. Just by talking to employees (new or old, burnt-out or fresh), and tapping into their needs, values and emotions, leaders are able to convince employees that they not only want the same goals (if it was not in their beliefs from the start), they are also eager to learn their role in achieving it (Hopfl, 1992). An analogy to this is that if there was a puddle in the road, a manager would walk around it so not to disrupt the stability and structure of the puddle (corporation), whereas, the leader would jump both feet into the puddle and see what�s next. Leaders thrive on causing waves in emotions and uncertainty in where their visions and actions will lead.
When we think of leaders, most of us think of people who have an unexplainable energy. In the short time we are in their presence, we are emotionally hypnotized by their words and visions. We find ourselves following them and their vision. We are drawn to them and therefore their cause. What is it that these leaders posses? Some researchers say this type of leader has charisma. The Webster�s New World Dictionary defines charisma as �a special quality of leadership that captures the popular imagination and inspires unanswering allegiance and devotion� (Gurlnik, 1984).
Charisma is something we know but cannot explain. When asked, people can list who they believe to be charismatic leaders, but when asked what qualities we associate with a charismatic leader, we are stumped to form the words. There are two thoughts for why this word has been thought to be so mystical. One reason is due to the history of the word itself. Charisma was always linked with the words supernatural and unseen forces (Nur, 1998). These two words alone are hard to explain. The second reason for the mystical label was described by the findings of theorists who believe charisma to be reliant on a society�s perceptions and what qualities it attributes to a person based on personal experiences (Conger, 1989).
This mystical word �charisma� is not a new word. It originated as a religious concept. It is Greek for �gift of grace� (Nur, 1998) It was used in the Bible as a word to describe wisdom, knowledge, supernatural abilities. Charisma was thought of as a gift from God bestowed on certain people. Charisma stayed in the religious realm until the late 1940�s (Nur, 1998). A German sociologist, by the name of Max Weber, was the first person to study charisma outside of the religious sector (Keithly & tritten, 1996). Weber decided that the word charisma could be used to describe a certain quality of an individual�s personality (1996). Weber believed that a person with this quality was special compared to �ordinary� people (Nur, 1996). Weber agreed with the Bible that people who possessed this quality had superhuman abilities and so should be deemed leaders (Nur, 1998). Therefore charisma was only seen to be found in leaders. Leaders with this quality of charisma were to be held in as high a regard as Moses and Buddha (1998). Weber saw charisma occurring due to people�s perceptions of what greatness was rather than on traditional authority (Yukl, 1994). For example, if there was a crisis situation a leader with charisma would solve the crisis quickly, thoroughly and effectively by a unique vision. Through this crisis situation and vision solution, the leader acquires followers due to their awe and perception that the leader must have superhuman qualities for solving this major crisis, therefore, believing in their vision (Yukl, 1994).
Since Weber, other sociologists and scientists have tried to define charisma and decern under what conditions it occurs. Two main theories which delve into the world of charisma stem from Robert House and a couple of researchers by the names Conger and Kanungo (keithly & Tritten, 1996).
It wasn�t until Robert House that religious connotations were completely shed from charisma (Nur, 1998). House dissected charisma, reducing it to its traits, behavioral manifestations and its effects on followers. House defined charisma as a leader�s ability to influence others� beliefs, values, morals and performances based on his/her own personal example of the above. House believed charismatic leaders to have three characteristics: an abundance of self confidence, dominance and a strong moral belief system (Yukl, 1994). Self confidence, he believed, was the key ingredient for trust, and dominance was the leading factor in getting followers to become motivated. Having a strong moral belief system was seen as inspiring to followers (1994). A theorist by the name of Bass expanded on House�s theory by stating under what conditions a charismatic leader would form (Yukl, 1989). He believed charismatic leaders are more likely to appear when a corporation is in a crisis, which is defined in this case as a major change causing stress on a corporation. He was sure to make clear that a crisis does not necessarily need to be present in order for charisma to shine through a person. Bass also expanded on House�s theory and stated that some charismatic leaders are not automatically liked, or considered leaders for that matter. One�s perceptions of what a charismatic leader is determines one�s idea of who is and isn�t a charismatic leader (1989).
Bass�s idea of perceptions leads into Conger and Kanungo�s theory (Yukl, 1994). Their theory is based on the assumption that charisma is an attributional phenomenon. It is not necessarily the leader as much as the followers who label the leader as having charisma. Followers base their criteria of having charisma on the leader�s behaviors and their own personal perceptions . The two went on to say that different leaders possess different levels of charisma depending on the situation. Also, what one person might label as a charismatic trait another might not (1994).
Based on this theory, charisma is likely to be attributed to leaders who generate visions beyond the status quo. That is they create visions, not just solve a vision already in place by the corporate mission (Yukl, 1994). Leaders who can visualize grandiose schemes are also thought to be risk takers (keithly & Tritten, 1996). The risk isn�t seen to put the followers in jeopardy as much as the leader. Leaders with charisma are seen to achieve risky visions using non-traditional strategies, which is another characteristic of charismatic leaders. These non-traditional methods are not seen as risky as much as unique and highly innovative. This idea of being innovative and crafty translates into being superior and wise by one�s followers. Leaders who believe in their vision and ooze this in their confidence are seen as extraordinary and able to succeed (Yukl, 1996).
These theories, amongst others, have generated a general agreement of what characteristics make a leader charismatic. Theorists found that these leaders are agents of change. They motivate change by always seeking out new opportunities or expanding on already existing visions. These leaders believe that something can always be done better (Yukl, 1996).
Corporations, over the last decade, have been in a state of change, unsure what is needed to place them at the top. Some believe this change can best be worked through by leaders who are masters of change and who capitalize on risks and opportunity. Charismatic leaders are known to have this ability.
Research shows that organizations have great difficulty in implementing new strategies for needed change (Collins, 1997). They try to change, using past solutions which cause the stationary bike effect (Collins, 1996). The corporation is peddling, but it is not going anywhere. If leadership is thought to be a major puzzle piece in creating change, charismatic leaders are thought to be the best leaders to have.
These leaders live for change (the chance to jump in the puddle) (Keithly & tritten, 1996). They live for the opportunity to turn grand visions into reality (Conger, 1989). Napolean Bonaparte said, �Imagination rules the world� (1989). Basically, he is saying that those who dare to look past reality and their four walls are masters of change. They also have magical ability to motivate employees to be just as committed and relentless in achieving what others believe to be unachievable (1989). They do this by their extraordinary self-confidence and ability to communicate. Charismatics have an ability to make each employee feel like he is the one making the difference in achieving their vision. They boost their employees� confidence in believing that without their skill they could not achieve the vision. The story of the brick layer is a good example of how a charismatic leader infiltrates his beliefs in others by making them feel that their job (no matter how tedious) is grand. When asked what the brick layer was doing he said he was building a cathedral. When asking the same question to this person who had a traditional leader he would tell you he was building a wall (1989).
Once the leader has a team of motivated employees enthusiastic in their vision, he demonstrates how the team will reach its goal (Conger, 1989). Usually a charismatic�s strategies are unconventional and somewhat radical. This could have the consequence of frightening employees, but the leader�s confidence that the strategy will work is enough to snuff any fears. Throughout this process trust is being built. Charismatics do this by showing more concern for their followers� needs than their own. This trust is very important to have since charismatics thrive on risk and the unknown. Lee Iococa is an example of a leader who demonstrated enormous self-sacrifice for his vision. During his first year with Chrysler, Lee gave himself a salary of one dollar (1989). This is also an example of role modeling. Charismatics are known to achieve their vision due to role modeling. Due to the employees� high regard for their leader they try to emulate that in themselves out of shear awe of what they want to be. The success of whether the vision is achieved or not is dependent on all these aspects (vision, motivation, self-sacrifice, confidence and trust) (1989).
The charismatic leader overall is an extremely powerful person within a corporation. Charismatic leaders have an incredible influence on a corporation and its employees. The hope is that this influence is used only for the good of the corporation and its employees, but sometimes charisma in a leader is a curse rather than a gift for a corporation. Charismatic leadership is not cost free (keithly & Tritten, 1996). There is potential for problems in each of the distinguishing features of charismatic leadership. Vision, goals and communication style become self motivated without regard for the market or the followers (Conger, 1989). Negative charismatics are highly self-centered which bring many undesirable consequences for all (leader, followers and corporations) (internet).
Negative leaders are so wrapped up into their vision that they dismiss their followers� needs and welfare (Howell, 1995). They use their hypnotic skills of persuasion and manipulation to get people to help reach their vision (1995). This vision is not generated as a collective, but rather is generated solely from within and for the leader. One leader stated this concept when he said, �The key is that it is my idea, and I am going to win with it at all costs� (1995). This doesn�t take into account the people or the corporation. This becomes dangerous when the leader miscalculates the extreme vision to a costly point. An example of miscalculation can be seen within the Polaroid company (Conger, 1989). For 30 years Polaroid held the monopoly on the instant camera market. This was all thanks to Dr. Land, a leader with charisma who was not afraid to reach for an extreme vision (1989). Up to this point Dr. Land could have been an example of a positive charismatic, but soon he was not satisfied with his accomplishment. He needed to invent a better camera. He designed and marketed his camera. Four million dollars later, his vision was not being as enthusiastically accepted as the first attempt (1989). Dr. Land was so caught up in his vision that he failed to research and listen to the market. He designed and marketed his vision, but no one bought into it. People wanted a better camera, not an expensive one (the first instant camera cost $30; the new one cost $180) (1989). Land lost Polaroid millions. Land�s vision became such a part of who he was that he failed to step back to realistically evaluate his idea with the demand of the market place. Some charismatics are driven by a bigger, better attitude (Hopfl, 1992). They may have had a successful vision on some scale and get so blind with greed that they fail to look at the market and listen to its followers. Not listening to their followers shows are inability to accept having made a mistake.
Maybe Dr. Land did realize the mistake in his vision, but he chose to fail to recognize the flaw. Leaders, such as Dr. Land, may realize their vision is producing undesirable results yet they don�t stop while they�re ahead and would rather accept their miscalculation for fear of looking incompetent to themselves and others. This idea is known as impression management (Conger, 1989). Creating an impression of greatness is needed at some level in order to gain respect of employees and keep a clean reputation. One leader who paid the price of stubbornness summed up his experience when he wrote, � I was hooked. At a certain point I got too many of my friends involved as investors, dealers and employees. I couldn�t let them down and just back out� (Levin,1983).
What is frightening about this type of thinking is that leaders are aware that their vision is flawed, but with their hypnotic skills of persuasion and manipulation they keep their followers believing in the exaggerated vision, no matter what the cost will be to them.
Leaders have a gift for hypnotizing people by their words. This becomes disadvantageous when they distort reality to improve the appeal of their visions. Leaders gain follower commitment by persuasion and manipulation, communicating only the positive and suppressing the negative of a vision (Howell, 1995). Leaders also accomplish this by distracting someone away from the negative by playing to a follower�s emotions.
Most charismatic leaders have the ability to be great schmoozers, and it is those leaders who do this that generate negative charisma (Conger, 1989). These leaders who fall in this category tell you what you want to hear. They gain your confidence and therefore commitment by creating and demonstrating an image based on what followers stereotype leaders to be and act like (attribution). A leader may tap into this stereotype by dressing different (Armani suits), by dying there hair or working out to come across as young at heart, fit and full of energy. One leader went as far as to get plastic surgery, drop 100 pounds and marry a model (Conger, 1989). Once this image is complete, they go a step further by �talking the talk.� Everyone knows a great �player� and has probably been schmoozed, but the difference is that the average person doesn�t have the added ingredient of charisma which makes him/her that much more powerful and believed.
All of these consequences of leading negatively are a result of an inability to be good administrators (Conger, 1989). Some charismatic leaders may be only that: charismatic, but do not have the skills of a manager in order to successfully see their vision through. They focus on the big picture with no regard for details (Howell, 1995). A charismatic leader may therefore show obvious favoritism towards his immediate team members, with disregard for all other teams (Conger, 1989). This is dangerous because there will not only be tension between the leader and other teams, but also between teams. Charismatic leaders, as stated earlier, have an intense energy that most people can�t rise up too (Hopfl, 1992). This causes the charismatic to become even more controlling, losing patience for follower�s inability to be just like themselves (Hopfl, 1992). This control leads into another fallibility of a negative charismatic leader. Charismatics do not sustain a corporation�s charisma by mentoring successors for fear of competition. Rather, they hinder or even get rid of any followers who seem threatening (Howell, 1995).
A charismatic leader�s core skills are so important that they cannot be overlooked as powerful assets of a large corporation, but corporations must be aware that these same strengths can also be the leader�s core weaknesses.
Whenever problems arise and seem uncorrectable, there comes a belief that the only solution is more leadership, which translates into better leadership which is believed to be charismatic leadership. We think that better leaders solve a corporation�s problems, but this isn�t so. Some corporations do fine without charismatic leaders, while others do poorly with them. As stated earlier, corporations can�t exist without its people. People make or break a corporation. Therefore, to answer the question asked in the beginning whether or not charisma is the key quality of making a great leader, the answer is, �No.� Charismatic leadership should not be looked at as the answer to corporate change and success. This type of leadership should be seen and used as a learning tool (Conger, 1989). By assessing their strengths , corporations can promote more effective leadership in general. It is not the �charisma� of a leader that is as important as his/her abilities. It also is not one particular person (whether they have charisma or not) who should be leading a corporation. It should be the entire corporation leading themselves.
