Discussion 1 Wk 5 assignment

Allied Academies International Conference page 15

Proceedings of the Academy of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 13(2) Reno, 2008

DEVELOPING AN UNDERSTANDING OF
CHARISMATIC AND TRANSFORMATIONAL

LEADERSHIP

James Reagan McLaurin, American University of Sharjah
[email protected]

Mohammed Bushanain Al Amri, Dubai Government
[email protected]

ABSTRACT

Leadership is a dynamic relationship which is based on mutual influence between leaders
and followers which results in a higher level of motivation and technical development as it promotes
changes. The theories of leadership have evolved from traits, behaviors and situations to a more
change-oriented approach. The two key types of leadership in this new approach are – Charismatic
Leadership and Transformational Leadership.

Charismatic leaders can be defined as those who have high self-confidence, a clear vision,
engage in unconventional behavior, and act as a change agent, while remaining realistic about
environmental constraints. Their key behaviors include role modeling, image building, articulation
of goals, showing confidence and arousing follower’s motives.

Transformational leaders are those who stimulate interest among followers to view their
work from new perspectives, generate awareness of the vision of the organization, develop followers
to higher levels of ability and potential, and motivate colleagues and followers to look beyond their
own interests toward those that will benefit the group. Their key behaviors include empowerment,
role modeling, creating a vision, acting as change agents, and making the norms and value clear
to all.

Though there are similarities between the two concepts, there are also numerous differences.
The main similarities are the focus on the vision, ideals, values and charisma from the leader’s
perspective. The major differences include charisma being one among the qualities of a
transformational leader rather than the sole element, the effect of situational favorableness or
uncertainty on both approaches, transformational behavior de-emphasizing charisma, the
charismatic leader’s possible self-centeredness and the probable negative effects of charismatic
leadership.

This article takes the reader through the general history and development of charismatic and
transformational theories of leadership. Transformational leadership and charismatic leadership
styles will be analyzed in depth and a comparison between these two leadership styles will be
reviewed. During the process, some light will also be thrown on transactional Leadership due to its
proximity with studies on transformational leadership theory. This article allows the reader to gain
an overall understanding of the development of understanding of the theories and a practical
application of them.

page 16 Allied Academies International Conference

Reno, 2008 Proceedings of the Academy of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 13(2)

INTRODUCTION

Up until the late 1970s, the theories on leadership were built on supervision as a means to
create improvements in the performance of stable work units. However, the study of leadership has
then shifted to charismatic / transformational leadership in which “actions of single managers appear
to create extraordinarily high levels of employee commitment, effort and willingness to take risks
in support of the organization or its mission” (Behling & McFillen, 1996).

This change is suggested to be a result of the growth of foreign competition in the United
States as well as other problems during that period. Conducting business became harder and
companies had to learn to make major changes in order to survive. Managers were in the search for
new means of leading so that they could convince their followers to adopt drastically new ways of
doing things (Behling & McFillen, 1996).

The question that hence emerged was what indeed was required in giving the leaders the
capability to predict and prepare for the most effective changes in the future? The answers were
provided by the concept known as change-oriented leadership; which included two major
components – charismatic leadership and transformational leadership (Greenberg & Baron, 2000).

DISCUSSION

Charismatic Leadership The charisma term was used by Weber to differentiate self-
appointed leaders followed by people who are in pain and need to follow the leader because they
believe him or her to be extraordinarily qualified (Aaltio-Marjosola, I & Takala, T. ,2000). The
charismatic leaders’ actions are inspirational and the enthusiasms they prompt heavily influence the
followers. For this reason, charismatic heroes and prophets such as Prophet Mohammed and Mother
Theresa are viewed as truly revolutionary forces in history (Gerth, H. & Mills, C.W., 1964),

The study of charisma and the difference views of authors have given charisma different
definitions. While some authors indicated that charisma represents the ability of a leader to exercise
diffuse and strong influences over the beliefs, values, behaviors, and performance of followers
through his/her vision, behaviors, beliefs, and personal examples (Conger & Kanungo, 1987, House,
Spangler & Woycke, 1991) others have suggested that “charisma is the ability to influence others
positively by connecting with them physically, emotionally, and intellectually.” (Aaltio-Marjosola,
I & Takala, T., 2000)

Studying different views and definitions, it is safe to conclude that charisma is an indefinable
personal quality that is based on the emotional aspects of both the leaders and the followers. In order
to understand charisma and its effect on the followers, followers’ reactions and perceptions must be
examined.

Charismatic leaders can be defined as those who have a high self-confidence, a clear vision,
engage in unconventional behavior, and act as a change agent, while remaining realistic about
environmental constraints. Charismatic leaders are believed to possess particular personality traits
and abilities while displaying unique behavioral model. Different researchers have identified
common characteristics for charismatic leaders with an addition or an omission of a characteristic
or two. Robbins (1992) specified some of the characteristics that differentiate the charismatic leaders
from non- charismatic leaders. The characteristics he mentioned include:

Allied Academies International Conference page 17

Proceedings of the Academy of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 13(2) Reno, 2008

a) Self-confidence
b) Strong faith in that vision
c) Out of ordinary behavior
d) Change seekers

House (1977) identified five key behavioral aspects of charismatic leaders. He pointed out
that charismatic leaders share the following behavioral traits:

a) Role modeling
b) Image Building
c) Articulation of goals
d) Showing confidence
e) Arousing follower’s motives

Transformational Leadership A more recent approach to understanding the phenomenon of
leadership which gained popularity since the early 1980s is that of transformational leadership
(Northouse, 1997). Transformational leadership completes the trio of concepts within “the New
leadership” paradigm suggested by Bryman (1992) which also includes charismatic and visionary
leadership whereby these concepts are stated to “integrate ideas from trait, style and contingency
approaches of leadership and also incorporates and builds on work of sociologists such as Weber
(1947) and political scientists such as Burns (1978)” (den Hartog, van Muijen and Koopman, 1997).
Transformational leadership is a part of “the New leadership” paradigm suggested by Bryman
(1992) which also includes charismatic and visionary leadership

Northouse (1997) suggests that transformational leaders motivate followers to do better than
they earlier expected or even considered achievable by doing the following –

a) Empowerment–
b) Role models –
c) Create a vision –
d) Change Agent –
e) Social architects –

Bass and Avolio claim that transformational leaders, unlike transactional leaders, engage in
much more with their colleagues than a simple exchange process (1994). They behave in different
ways to achieve superior results by using factors better known as the “Four I’s” (Avolio, Waldman
& Yammarino, 1991). These elements are –

a) Idealized influence
b) Inspirational motivation
c) Intellectual stimulation
d) Individualized consideration

Nonleadership As the French terms suggests, a laissez-faire leader follows an approach
whereby he lets things run the way they are. Such a leader does not assume responsibility, delays
decisions and makes little effort to understand followers’ needs and satisfy them. Since there is
neither an exchange with the followers nor any attempts to help them grow, this approach is also
called “non leadership.” An example for this approach is the president of a garment manufacturing
firm who has no long term plans for his organization and maintains very limited contact with its

page 18 Allied Academies International Conference

Reno, 2008 Proceedings of the Academy of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 13(2)

employees. Bass, in his Model of Transformational and Transactional Leadership places laissez-faire
at one end of the leadership continuum as a nonleadership approach (Bass & Avolio, 1994).

From the explanations above, it is very evident that there exists a huge difference between
transactional and transformational leadership. Some of the key differences are –

a) Transactional leadership is a bargaining exchange process between the leader and follower
while transformational leadership involves various activities including motivating, meeting
individualized needs and challenging the way of working and forming trust within the
relationship (Bass & Avolio, 1994).

b) Transformational leadership involves leader cultivating the employee acceptance in the
mission of the group (Deluga, 1988).

c) While transactional leadership leads to the expected or planned outcomes, transformational
leadership leads to performance that is well beyond expectations (Bass & Avolio, 1994).

d) Transactional leaders, due to their focus on maintaining the status quo, “limit employee’s
-efforts towards the goals, job satisfaction and effectiveness toward contributing to
organizational goals” (Deluga, 1988).

e) Transactional leadership does not consider the needs of the followers on an individual basis,
unlike transformational leadership (Northouse, 1997).

f) Transactional leadership also overlooks the personal development needs of the followers
(Northouse, 1997).

g) Studies have shown that the flow of power and influence between the leader and follower
is subject to constant fluctuation during transactional leadership, while it is more stable in
transformational since the leader and the follower work closely towards the common
organizational goals (Deluga, 1988).

Though there are many differences between the two forms of leadership, Bass (1997)
claimed that studies have failed to show one among the two leadership styles as the best one (Green,
Odom, Bearden & Bazar, 2003). Most leaders’ profiles are said to have a full range of leadership
which includes both forms – transformational and transactional (Bass & Avolio, 1994).

The distinguishing factor on what kind of a leader one is depends on the degree to which one
assume each of two approaches. If a leader’s activities are much more transformational than
transactional, then he/she is defined as a transformational one. At the same time, a leader whose
beliefs and values are consistent with transactional leadership may still behave transformationally
in some situations (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1998).

As Bass (1998) puts it, “the best of leadership is both transformational and transactional”
(Green, Odom, Bearden & Bazar, 2003). Transformational leadership can be described as
complementary to the effectiveness of transactional leadership rather than a replacement for it, as
portrayed in the diagram ahead (Waldman, Bass, & Yammarino, 1990). The importance of
transactional leadership within the leadership paradigm is also supported by Lowe, Kroeck and
Subramanian (1996) (Green, Odom, Bearden & Bazar, 2003).

Northouse (1997) identified the following strengths for transformational leadership based
on the present studies on the subject:

a) Widely researched
b) Intuitive appeal

Allied Academies International Conference page 19

Proceedings of the Academy of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 13(2) Reno, 2008

c) Process between leaders and followers
d) Broader view of leadership
e) Emphasis on follower needs, values and morals

Alongside its many strength’s, Northouse (1997) presents some of the key criticisms against
transformational leadership:

a) Lacks conceptual clarity
b) Either – or approach
c) Treats leadership as a personality trait
d) Elitist and Antidemocratic
e) Purely qualitative data
f) Potential for abuse

However, in spite of these weaknesses, transformational leadership remains to be a valuable
and widely used approach of leadership.

CONCLUSION

Though scholars admit that research on leadership in the past was limited due to inconsistent
results and limited advance in theory, there is light at the end of the tunnel now. What started off
with the trait approach in the 1930s, the behavioral approach in the 1950s, the contingency approach
in the 1970s has come a long way to what Bryman (1992) identifies as the “new Leadership”
paradigm (Antonakis & House, 2002).

The theories of Bass and the revisions by Bass and Avolio on transactional, transformational
and laissez-faire leadership have been commended as models that hold substantial promise in
explaining the leadership phenomena (Antonakis & House, 2002).

Regarding to the study of charisma, Bass (1990) pointed out that the degree of change in
charisma can not only be attributed to the exceptional individual, but also to the exceptional
situation and to the interaction between the two; further emphasizing the fact that this approach is
highly dependent on the situation (Howell, 1997).

On the other hand, transformational leadership approach is more likely to exist in situations
where the basic level of anxiety is not high and the focus is on the development needs of the team.
To summarize, the transformational approach is more dependent “on the leader’s view of
himself/herself as transformational and less on the organizational context than do transactional and
charismatic leadership” (Popper & Zakkai, 1994)