PERSONALITY AND
CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP
Robert J. House*
The Wharton School
University of Pennsylvania
Jane M. Howell
University
of Western Ontario
In this paper we review prior theory and empirical evidence relevant to the personality characteristics
that differentiate charismatic leaders from noncharismatic
leaders. We 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.
We then present 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. We 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.
Over the last 15 years a substantial body of theory and empirical evidence has been
accumulated concerning exceptional leasders who have extraordinary
effects on their
followers and eventually
on social systems. Such leadership-alternatively
called
“charismatic” (House, 1977; Weber, 1947), “visionary” (Sashkin, 1988), “transformational” (Avolio & Bass, 1988; Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978), and “inspirational”
(Yukl &
Van Fleet, 1982)-is
claimed to influence followers in ways that are quantitatively
greater and qualitatively different than the follower effects specified in past leadership
theories. We refer to this new genre of leadership theories as charismatic
because
charisma is a central concept in all of them, either explicitly or implicitly.
*Direct all correspondence
to: Robert
Philadephia,
PA 19104-6370.
J. House,
Leadership Quarterly, 3(2), 81-108.
Copyright @ 1992 by JAI Press Inc.
All rights of reproduction
in any form reserved
ISSN: 1048-9843
The Wharton
School,
University
of Pennsylvania,
a2
LEADERSHIP
QUARTERLY
Vol. 3 No. 2
1992
According to charismatic leadership theory, such leaders transform the needs, values,
preferences, desires and aspirations of followers from self-interests to collective interests.
Further, they cause followers to become highly committed to the leader’s mission, to
make significant personal sacrifices in the interest of the mission, and to perform above
and beyond the call of duty. Bennis and Nanus (1985) and Tichy and Devanna (1986)
argue that such leaders have a transforming
effect on the organizations
that they lead
as well as on their followers.
ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRADITIONAL LEADERSHIP
AND CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES
THEORIES
In contrast to earlier leadership theories, which concern the effects of leaders on follower
cognitions
and task-related
behavior, charismatic
theories take as their dependent
variables followers’ emotional
attachment
to the leader; followers’ emotional
and
motivational
arousal; enhancement
of followers’ valences with respect to the mission
articulated by the leader; followers’ self-esteem, trust, and confidence in the leader;
followers’ values; and followers’ intrinsic motivation.
The leader behavior specified by charismatic theories also differs from traditional
leadership theories. The earlier leadership theories describe leader behavior in terms
of leader-follower
exchange relationships
(Graen & Cashman, 1975; Hollander, 1964)
providing
direction
and support (Evans, 1970; House, 1971) and reinforcement
behaviors (Ashour & Johns, 1983; Podsakoff, Todor, & Skov, 1982). In contrast,
charismatic
leadership theory emphasizes symbolic leader behavior, visionary and
inspirational
ability,
nonverbal
communication,
appeal to ideological
values,
intellectual stimulation
of followers by the leader, and leader expectations for follower
self-sacrifice and for performance beyond expectations. Such leadership is seen as giving
meaning to work by infusing work and organizations
with moral purpose and
commitment
rather than by affecting the cognitions
or the task environment
of
followers, or by offering material incentives and the threat of punishment.
As of our last count, there have been at least 25 studies of this new genre of leadership
theory. These studies have been conducted using a wide variety of methods including
laboratory experimentation,
participant
observation,
cross-sectional
and longitudinal
survey research in natural settings, case studies, qualitative
interpretative
analysis,
rigorous content analysis of interviews, observation in a management game, and analysis
of archival data. These studies have also been based on a wide variety of samples including
U.S. presidents, university students, project champions, chief executive officers, military
combat and noncombat
squad leaders, naval and airforce cadet squadron leaders, and
middle and lower level managers in the United States. In addition, middle managers
in India, school principals in Singapore, and managers of supermarkets in Holland have
also been studied (see House, Spangler, and Woycke [ I99 11for a review of these studies).
Space limitations
prevent a detailed review of the methodology
and the specific
findings of each of these studies. However, collectively the findings indicate that
charismatic behaviors produce the theoretical charismatic effects on followers specified
above as dependent variables, receive higher performance ratings, have more satisfied
and more highly motivated followers, and are viewed as more effective leaders by their
superiors and followers than others in positions of leadership. Further, the effect size
Personality and Charismatic Leadership
83
of charismatic leader behavior on follower satisfaction and performance is consistently
higher than prior field study findings concerning
other leader behavior, generally
ranging well below .Ol probability of error due to chance, with correlations frequently
ranging in the neighborhood
of SO or better, even when common-method
and commonsource bias is controlled.
According to House (1977) and Shamir, House, and Arthur (1992), the charismatic
behaviors that theoretically result in these effects are: (1) articulating
an ideological
vision-a
vision that specifies a better future state in terms of such values as human
rights, peace, freedom, order, equality, and attainment of status and privileges that are
claimed to be the moral right of followers; (2) referring to distal rather than proximate
goals; (3) communicating
messages that contain frequent reference to values and moral
justifications,
to the collective and to collective identity, and to followers’ worth and
efficacy as individuals
and as a collective; (3) behaviorally
role modeling the values
implied in the vision by personal example; (4) expressing high performance expectations
of followers; (5) communicating
a high degree of confidence in followers’ ability to meet
such expectations; and (6) demonstrating
behaviors that selectively arouse unconscious
achievement,
power, and affiliative motives of followers when these motives are
specifically relevant to the attainment of the vision. (See House and Shamir 119921 for
a discussion of charismatic leaders’ motive arousing behaviors.)
Other authors have suggested additional charismatic behaviors. Weber (1947) argued
that charismatic leaders offer radical solutions to major social problems. Bass (1985)
suggested that charismatic
leaders intellectually
stimulate their followers and are
sensitive to follower needs and considerate of followers. Conger and Kanungo (1987)
and Sashkin (1988) argued that charismatic leaders take extraordinary
risks in pursuit
of their vision. With the exception of number six above, which has not been investigated,
all of the behaviors
have been shown to differentiate
charismatic
leaders from
noncharismatic
leaders and to have a positive effect on leader and follower effectiveness
and follower motivation and satisfaction.
THE PROBLEM
Despite the increased attention being focused on charismatic leadership in the academic
literature, to date no scholarly consensus has emerged on the precise application
of
the concept of charisma (Howell & House, 1992). The term charismatic has been applied
to very diverse leaders emerging in political arenas (Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini,
Fidel Castro, Franklin Delano Roosevelt), in religious movements (Jesus Christ, Jim
Jones), in social movement organizations
(Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr.,
Malcolm X), and in business organizations
(Lee Iacocca, Steven Jobs, Ross Johnson,
Mary Kay Ash). Clearly, charisma is a broadly applied term that does not distinguish
between good or moral and evil or immoral leadership. The challenge facing leadership
scholars, therefore, is to distinguish between different types of charismatic leaders using
criteria that are free of moral evaluation such as observable and verifiable personality
characteristics of the leaders.
There has been some theoretical speculation and empirical research concerning the
personality
characteristics
which differentiate
charismatic
leaders (CLs) from
noncharismatic
leaders (NCLs) (House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1991; Howell & Higgins,
84
LEADERSHIP
QUARTERLY
Vol. 3 No. 2 1992
1990a; Ross & Offerman, 1991; Roush & Atwater, 1992; Smith, 1982). Further, several
authors have advanced speculations suggesting personality traits and behaviors that
theoretically
differentiate
personalized
(self-aggrandizing,
exploitive,
and nonegalitarian)
leaders from socialized
(collectively
motivated,
nonexploitive,
and
egalitarian) leaders (Bass, 1988; Hogan, Raskin, & Fazzini, 1990; Howell, 1988; Howell
& Avolio, 1992; Howell & House, 1992; Musser, 1988). However, the theory and research
concerning CL personality characteristics is both quite limited and fragmentary.
The purpose of this paper is to summarize the evidence concerning CL personality
characteristics
and to advance a theoretical extension of CL theory. The theoretical
extension presented here consists of identification
of a set of personality characteristics
that theoretically differentiate personalized from socialized CLs. Before presenting our
review of the evidence
concerning
CL personality,
we first define the terms
“personalized”
and “socialized” charisma.
Defining Socialized and Personalized CL
Following
McClelland
(1975), we define socialized charismatic
leadership
as
leadership which (a) is based on egalitarian behavior, (b) serves collective interests and
is not driven by the self-interest of the leader and (c) develops and empowers others.
McClelland and his colleagues (1972) reported a study which suggests that socialized
leaders tend to be altruistic, to work through legitimate established channels and systems
of authority when such systems exist, and to be self-controlled
and follower-oriented
rather than narcissistic.
Also, following McClelland (1975), we define personalized charismatic leadership as
leadership which (a) is based on personal dominance and authoritarian
behavior, (b)
serves the self-interest of the leader and is self-aggrandizing
and (c) is exploitive of others
(McClelland,
1975). Theoretically
personalized
leaders rely on personal approval or
rejection of followers to induce others to comply with their wishes. They show disregard
for the rights and feelings of others and they tend to be narcissistic, impetuous, and
impulsively aggressive (Howe11 & House, 1992). (See Howell and House [19921 for a
more detailed, rich description of personalized and socialized leadership.)
While we delineate two “pure” types of charismatic leadership, it is recognized that
these leadership types are not mutually exclusive. It is possible that a leader will, at
times, simultaneously
display behavior that reflects some aspects of both personalized
and socialized charismatic
tendencies.
Although
such mixed forms of charisma
undoubtedly
occur, the extreme or pure types of charisma are analyzed here for purposes
of differentiating
them.
We now turn to our discussion of the personality
traits of CLs, followed by a
description of the personality characteristics that theoretically differentiate personalized
from socialized CLs.
PERSONALITY
TRAITS
OF CLs
In this section we review early research evidence on leader personality traits, summarize
empirical findings relevant to traits that characterize CLs, and then contrast CL traits
with leader personality traits in general. Prior to embarking on this review, we clarify
Personality
and Charismatic
the terms “dominance”
leadership traits.
85
Leadership
and “need
for power”
which
appear
in our discussion
of
Clarification of Terms
In the discussion that follows the constructs “dominance”
and “need for power” are
defined. Unfortunately,
the dominance scale of the California Personality
Inventory
(CPI) and the need referred to by McClelland as the need for power (or n-pow, or
the power motive), convey meanings to most people that are not consistent with what
is measured by these two constructs, when operationalized.
The CPI dominance scale
is a measure of prosocial assertiveness and is not a measure of the need to dominate
or to control others, or to engage in authoritarian
behavior. As pointed out by House
and Baetz (1979, p. 351), the CPI dominance scale measures prosocial assertiveness
and ascendence in social settings and not bossy, pushy, or domineering
behavior.
Individuals who score high on the CPI Dominance scale tend to take initiative in social
settings, to introduce people to each other, and to be socially engaging by being
humorous, introducing
topics of discussion, and stimulating social interaction.
Such
individuals are socially ascendent in that they are clearly noticeable, and their behavior
is usually welcomed.
The need for power is operationally
a measure of nonconscious
motivation to have
an impact on others or one’s environment.
According to McClelland and his associates
(1972), the manner in which this need is satisfied, whether prosocial or antisocial,
depends on whether the individual also has a nonconscious
need to be responsible for
his or her actions and for the consequences of such actions on others (Winter, 1991).
The labels “dominance”
and “need for power” have the negative connotation
of
socially undesirable, domineering,
and controlling behavior. Accordingly, these labels
have misled the readers of the literature concerning both motivation
and leadership.
It would be much more accurate to relabel the CPI dominance
scale as “prosocial
assertiveness” and the need for power as “need for social influence.”
Early Research on leader Personality Traits
Early research concerning leader personality traits identified a number of traits that
frequently, but not always, differentiated
emergent from non-emergent
leaders, and
effective from ineffective leaders (Mann, 1959; Stogdill, 1948). One of the traits most
frequently found by Stogdill to be predictive of leader behavior or leader effectiveness
is dominance (often measured by the CPI dominance scale). Other traits consistently
predictive of leader behavior are intelligence, self-confidence,
activity or energy, and
task-relevant
knowledge. Stodgill (1948) pointed out that traits are likely to be better
predictors of leader behavior and effectiveness if treated as variables that interact with
selected contextual variables to predict leader behavior or leader effectiveness. Contrary
to much folklore in the social sciences literature, Stogdill did not call for a moratorium
on trait research, nor did he assert that traits are not predictive of leader behavior or
effectiveness.
House and Baetz (1979) pointed out that Stogdill’s (1948) summary is somewhat
misleading in that it included studies based on children and adolescent leaders. When
studies based on children or adolescent leaders were excluded from Stogdill’s analysis,
86
LEADERSHIP
QUARTERLY
Vol. 3 No. 2 1992
the results showed a set of traits that had a consistent set of effects on follower
attributions
of leadership, leadership emergence or leadership performance.
In fact,
almost all of the negative or conflicting findings reviewed by Stogdill are based on studies
of children or adolescent leaders of youthful gangs, groups, or athletic teams. Further,
many of the studies reported by Stogdill(l948)
and Mann (1959) had respectable effect
sizes ranging between .40 to .50.
Recent studies have confirmed the importance of trait-based variance in leadership
(Kenny & Zaccaro, 1983; Lord, De Vader, & Alliger, 1986; Zaccaro, Foti, & Kenny,
1991). For example, in a reanalysis of a leadership trait study conducted by Barnlund
(1962) Kenny and Zaccaro (1983) reported that between 49% and 82% of leadership
variance could be attributed to a stable characteristic
of the emergent leader. They
speculated that this characteristic
may involve leader social sensitivity and behavioral
flexibility.
This speculation
was supported
in a subsequent
investigation
of the
relationship
between perceived leader status across different group situations
and
interpersonal
sensitivity conducted by Zaccaro, Foti, and Kenny (199 1). They found
that 59% of the variance in leadership emergence was trait-based and suggested that
social perceptiveness and behavioral flexibility were the relevant leadership traits.
Lord, De Vader, and Alliger (1986) conducted a meta-analysis
of 35 studies reported
by Mann (1959) and others dealing with six traits that were associated with follower
attributions
of leadership. Traits that Lord and his associates found to be significantly
associated with follower perceptions of leadership were intelligence, dominance,
and
masculinity-femininity.
Adjustment was also very close to being statistically significant.
Thus, Lord and his colleagues (1986) concluded that “personality traits are associated
with leadership perceptions to a higher degree and more consistently than the popular
literature indicates” (p. 407).
House and Baetz (1979) argued that a select set of traits are likely to differentiate
leaders from nonleaders,
and effective leaders from ineffective leaders in most
circumstances
because:
First, leadership always
be needed if attempted
fluency and such traits
the status of leadership
takes place with respect to others. Therefore, social skills are likely always to
influence acts are to be viewed as acceptable to others. Such skills as speech
as personal integrity, cooperativeness,
and sociability are prime candidates for
traits.
Second, leadership requires a predisposition
to be influential. Therefore such traits as dominance or
ascendance,
need for influence..
and need for power... are also hypothesized
to be associated with
leadership.
Third, leadership most frequently takes place with respect to specific task objectives or organizational
goals. Consequently,
such traits as need for achievement,
initiative, tendency to assume personal
responsibility for outcomes, desire to excel, energy, and task-relevant
ability are also hypothesized to
be associated with leadership (p. 353).
Traits Specifically Characteristic
of Cls
There is some theory and evidence with respect to the psychological
differentiate CLs from NCLs. Weber (1947) argued that CLs have a special
sets them apart from ordinary individuals. According to Weber, by virtue of
gift, which appears from his writings to be a specific and unique personality
traits that
gift which
this special
syndrome,
Personality and Charismatic Leadership
87
CLs are able to command love, respect, awe, devotion, voluntary compliance,
and
substantial
personal sacrifices from followers in pursuit of their vision and mission.
Weber did not, however, specify the nature of this gift, the personality traits of CLs,
or the behaviors that set them apart from ordinary people.
Borgatta, Couch, and Bales (1954) argued that some leaders are “great” and that
by virtue of their greatness they are able to lead followers to larger achievements than
others who are not great. This argument is referred to the literature as the “Great Man
Theory of Leadership.” Borgattaet al. (1954) provided supportive evidence for the Great
Man Theory. These authors selected 11 “Great Men” out of 126 who scored high on
three attributes: task ability (leadership ratings received on a prior task and IQ score),
individual
assertiveness (ratings received on a prior task), and social acceptability
(sociometric choice on a prior task). These “Great Men” were each assigned to four
task groups. Two new co-participants
were involved in each task. The groups led by
“Great Men” were compared to groups led by men who were not high on all three
of the above dimensions.
Groups led by “Great Men” had higher rates of giving
suggestions and arriving at agreements, lower tension, and higher positive social and
emotional behavior in comparison
to groups not led by “Great Men.” The authors
concluded “. . .thus, it may be said that great men tend to make ‘great groups’ in the
sense that both major factors of group performance-productivity
and satisfaction of
the members-are
increased” (p. 759). Thus, there is evidence that “great” or possibly
charismatic leaders are distinguished
from others in terms of personality traits and
behaviors.
House’s (1977) theory of charismatic leadership includes a description of personality
characteristics that theoretically differentiate CLs from NCLs. According to House’s
theory, CLs have high self-confidence,
high verbal ability, high need for influence or
power, and exceptionally
strong convictions in the moral correctness of their beliefs.
Theoretically
CLs need to have a very high degree of self-confidence
and moral
conviction because their mission is usually unconventional
and likely to be resisted from
those who have a stake in preserving the status quo. Consequently,
CLs need to be
exceptionally
determined and to persist in the face of high risks and major obstacles.
Further, the display of confidence and determination
inspires and thus motivates and
empowers followers. According to House (1977), nonverbal expressiveness
and the
ability to be verbally articulate are necessary for CLs to communicate
their vision and
mission in a compelling way to followers. Finally, House argues that CLs need to derive
satisfaction from the process of leading others and being influential. Thus they need
to have a high need for influence if they are to receive intrinsic satisfaction from leading
and to be sustained in the face of risks, obstacles and hardship.
Support for the general proposition
that personality traits differentiate
CLs from
NCLs has been reported in several field studies. Smith (1982) administered the Ghiselli
self-assurance scale and the CPI dominance scale to 30 reputed effective CLs and 30
reputed effective NCLs. He also obtained follower ratings of the leaders’ personal
dynamism using a scale that reflects leaders’ enthusiasm, energy, and involvement with
respect to their work. He found the CLs to be more self-assured and dynamic than
the NCLs. However the scores of the two groups on the dominance
scale were not
significantly different. Based on interviews with the leaders, Smith further reported that
the CLs were more developmentally
oriented towards their followers than the NCLs.
88
LEADERSHIP
QUARTERLY
Vol. 3 No. 2 1992
That is, CLs showed more concern for the professional growth of their followers and
reported that they engaged in more developmental
efforts such as coaching, role
modeling by personal example, and providing guidance and developmental
experiences.
Based on a rigorous content analysis of interview transcripts of a matched sample
of 25 champions
and 25 nonchampions
of technological
innovations,
Howell and
Higgins (1990a, 1990b) found that champions
reported that they engaged in the
following
leader behaviors
significantly
more than nonchampions:
articulating
a
compelling
vision of the innovation’s
potential
for the organization,
expressing
confidence
in others
to participate
effectively
in the initiative,
displaying
unconventional,
innovative
actions to achieve goals, showing self-confidence,
and
assessing environmental
resources
and constraints
for bringing
about change.
Champions
also initiated significantly
more influence attempts than nonchampions.
Thus champions
can be considered
informal charismatic
leaders. The personality
characteristics
that differentiated
champions
from nonchampions
were higher risk
taking, cognitive achievement orientation
and innovativeness.
Ross and Offerman (1990) tested the hypothesis that since CLs change organizational
cultures, goals, ideology, and follower norms, such leaders are likely to have a higher
need for change and to be more flexible than NCLs. These investigators
also tested
a hypothesis suggested by an exploratory study conducted previously by Clover (1988).
Ross and Offerman (1990) report that:
Clover found that the transformational
Icharismatic] leaders scored significantly higher in measures
of feminine attributes,
nurturance
and pragmatism
than did the nontransformational
leaders. The
transformational
leaders also scored significantly lower on measures of masculine attributes, dominance,
aggression, and criticalness. Clover concluded that his group of transformational
leaders was more
flexible, more compassionate,
more insightful, more pragmatic, and less forceful and tough than their
nontransformational
counterparts
(p. 4).
Ross and Offerman (1990) note that “these results are obviously at odds with the
stereotypical military leader” (p. 4). Following Clover (1988), they postulated that CLs
are likely to be higher on feminine attributes, nurturance,
and pragmatism than NCLs.
The subjects of the Ross and Offerman study were 40 U.S. Air Force Academy commissioned officers. The officers were in their mid-careers and each was in charge of a squadron
of 110 cadets. The leader behavior of these officers was assessed on the basis of ratings
provided by themselves and three closely associated subordinates using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ) (Bass, 1985). Ross and Offerman also administered
several scales of the Gough and Heilbrun (1975) adjective checklist to the officers.
The correlations between the cadets’ ratings of officer CL behavior and the assessed
personality traits are presented in Table 1. From this table it can be seen that several
leader traits are correlated with ratings of charismatic behavior. The most intriguing
aspect of these findings is that charisma is positively related to the personality traits
of feminism and nurturance
and negatively correlated with masculinity,
dominance,
aggression and criticalness. These findings are not only at odds with prior findings
concerning conventional
leaders reviewed above, but also somewhat counterintuitive
in that the stereotype of charismatic leaders, especially in the military, suggests that
such leaders would be bold, assertive, and forceful.
Personality
and Charismatic
Correlations
Leadership
89
Table 1
of Personality Measures and Charismatic Leadership
(The Ross and Offerman Study)
Measure
ACL
Scale(s)
Need for change
Self-confidence
Dominance
Feminine attributes
Pragmatism
Nurturance
Masculine attributes
Criticalness
Aggression
Need for change and Creative personality
Self-confidence and Personal adjustment
Dominance
Feminine
A-3
Nurturance and Nurturing parent
Masculine
Critical parent
Aggression
Correlations
.34*
.63***
.I5
.54***
.69***
,61+**
-.17
-.49***
-.47***
* p < .05
** p < .Ol
***
I, < ,001
There are two possible explanations
for these counterintuitive
findings. First, Bass
(1985) and Sashkin (1988) argue that charismatic leaders are highly considerate of, and
sensitive to, the needs of their followers. The above findings are consistent with this
argument. Second, the Path Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness (House, 1971) predicts
that supportive
leadership
is most satisfying
to followers under conditions
of
dissatisfying jobs, stress, or boredom. Accordingly, leaders who are more feminine and
nurturant and less masculine, dominant, critical, and aggressive would be predicted from
this theory to produce more follower satisfaction
under highly demanding
and
structured conditions such as those found in the Air Force Academy. We return to
a discussion of this issue later.
Roush and Atwater (1992) studied the personality characteristics of 90 midshipmen
at the U.S. Naval Academy who had been assigned as squad leaders for incoming Naval
Academy students. The midshipmen had completed 2 or 3 years at the Academy. Their
task was to help incoming freshmen in the transition from civilian to military life; to
impart to them a modicum of military skills, knowledge and attitudes; and to prepare
them for integration into the Brigade of Midshipmen.
The midshipmen completed the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI) which permits
classification
of respondents
into personality types according to whether they prefer
extroversion
or introversion,
sensing or intuition, thinking or feeling, and judging or
perception, as their ways of behaving, taking in information,
making decisions, and
making judgments. The leader behavior of midshipmen was assessed by responses from
1,235 freshmen and self-reports from the 90 midshipmen
using a modified version of
Bass’s (1985) MLQ. Freshmen also completed a satisfaction questionnaire
and a scale
that measured midshipmen effectiveness with respect to ability, meeting requirements
of the command, representing the squad to higher authority, and meeting followers’
job-related needs.
Analyses were performed
to assess the relationships
between leaders’ MBTI
preferences and the leadership and performance ratings provided by the followers. The
results revealed that sensing as opposed to intuition types, and feeling as opposed to
90
LEADERSHIP
QUARTERLY
Vol. 3 No. 2 1992
thinking
types were rated significantly
higher on charismatic
and inspirational
leadership. Sensing types concentrate
on concrete detail rather than abstract global
considerations.
Feeling types concentrate
on affective responses of others rather than
impersonal logical processes and cognitions.
Followers were more likely to report extra effort for leaders whom they rated as
charismatic and inspirational.
This finding is likely to reflect common method-common
source bias since all data concerning the leader’s behavior and follower effort in this
analysis were based on follower responses in the same questionnaire.
However, several
studies not limited by such bias have also demonstrated
similar results (Curphy, 1990;
House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1991; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Smith, 1982). Accordingly,
there is likely to be a grain of truth in the Roush and Atwater findings concerning
the relationship between leader charisma and follower effort, despite the likely common
method-common
source bias.
Finally, House, Spangler, and Woycke (1991) tested a recent theory which integrates
McClelland’s
Leader Motive
Profile Theory
(LMP)
with House’s Theory
of
Charismatic Leader Effectiveness. According to McClelland’s LMP Theory, effective
leaders will both enjoy the process of exerting social influence (need for power) and
feel constrained
not to use power in an exploitive manner through coercion or
manipulation
(activity inhibition). As described earlier, House’s Theory of Charismatic
Leadership postulates that CLs have a high need to influence others. House and his
colleagues used Winter’s (1987) motive scores of all elected U.S. presidents from
Washington
to Carter by applying the Thematic Apperception
Test (TAT) coding
procedure
to presidential
inaugural
addresses.
Winter and Stewart (1978) have
demonstrated
that this coding procedure is valid and predictive of presidential behavior.
House et al. (1991) found that the need for power and activity inhibition were predictive
of presidential
charismatic
leader behavior and of presidential
effectiveness in the
execution of their policies.
Conclusion: CL Personality
An interesting, and somewhat surprising, picture of the charismatic personality can
be drawn from the research reviewed above. CLs are differentiated
from NCLs by
several personality traits including: cognitive achievement orientation; strong tendencies
to be creative, innovative, visionary, and inspirational;
high levels of work involvement,
energy, and enthusiasm; a strong propensity to take risks; self-confidence;
a high need
for social influence coupled with a strong concern for the moral and nonexploitive
use
of power in a socially desirable manner; willingness to exercise influence but not to
be dominant, tough, forceful, aggressive, or critical; strong inclinations to be confident
in, and encouraging toward, followers and to show a developmental
orientation towards
followers; and tendencies
to be nurturant,
socially sensitive, and sensitive to and
considerate of follower needs.
Collectively, these studies indicate that CLs in complex organizations
do not fit the
stereotype of a bold, forceful, assertive, and aggressive leader such as General George
Patton and Ross Johnson. Rather the findings describe a leader who is sensitive to
follower needs, nurturant
and developmentally
oriented such as Max DePree (1989).
Personality
and Charismatic
91
Leadership
Consistent with Bass’s (1985) argument, CLs appear to foster follower independence
rather than subservience. Bass (1985) contends that transformational
(or charismatic)
leaders even encourage followers to think for themselves to the extent that they become
willing to openly question the leader’s directions when in disagreement with the leader.
Through coaching, questioning,
and role modeling, the leader stimulates followers to
question the status quo, to consider creative ways to tackle and solve problems on their
own, and to solve future problems unforeseen by the leader. By creating learning
opportunities
for their followers, tailoring these learning opportunities
to their needs,
and providing social support conducive to learning, CLs build followers’self-confidence
and self-reliance and foster their growth and independence
in a collaborative
way.
Ultimately CLs create followers who are more capable of leading themselves.
We refer to the CL traits described above as socialized leadership because these traits
are generally viewed by others as socially desirable. However, an important limitation
of the empirical studies to date is that CL has been treated as a unidimensional
phenomenon.
Many recent social scientists (Graham, 1988; Hodgkinson,
1983; Hogan,
Raskin, & Fazzini, 1990; Howell 1988; Howell & Avolio, 1992; Howell & House, 1992;
Roberts & Bradley, 1988; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1992) as well as many earlier
historians,
playwrights,
sociologists
and political scientists have recognized
that
charisma has both a bright side and a dark side. Yet there is no solid empirical evidence
to indicate that unprincipled
CLs are characterized
by identifiable
personality
characteristics.
We now turn to speculative discussion of this issue.
PERSONALITY
THEORY
Our theoretical perspective regarding the components of CL personality is an integration
of the motivational theories of David McClelland (1985a, b) and Albert Bandura (1986).
We argue that individual
behavior is a function of motives, personality
traits,
intentions, and situational variables. Motives are relatively stable dispositions that serve
to stimulate, energize, direct, maintain,
and terminate behavior. Motives consist of
learned networks of associations
between behavioral,
physiological,
affective, and
cognitive responses to stimuli. Motives are primarily nonconscious
in the sense that
individuals
are not usually aware of the specific stimuli that arouse their motives.
Further, individuals may also not be aware of their behavioral tendencies and behavioral
response to arousal stimuli. However, some individuals might be, to some extent, aware
of their general behavioral tendencies and responses to stimuli. Thus motives need not
be exclusively nonconscious.
Personality traits are strongly learned and relatively stable dispositions to behave
in a coherent manner across situations and over time. Habits, values, generalized
expectations, and dispositions to think in cognitively simple or cognitively complex ways
are examples of personality traits. Specific personality traits that have relevance to this
paper are values and individual efficacy expectations.
Habits are behavioral responses to stimuli that are so well learned that they do not
require conscious
attention
to execute their performance.
Values are strongly
internalized
evaluative judgements
concerning
the appropriateness
and morality of
specific behaviors or classes of behavior. Efficacy expectations are beliefs concerning
whether the individual can effectively perform specific behaviors. Efficacy expectations
92
LEADERSHIP
QUARTERLY
Vol. 3 No. 2 1992
are a function of generalized self-esteem, internal locus of control orientation,
habits
that have been learned over time, ability to perform the specific behavior under
consideration
and individual
perceptions
of the degree to which situations offer an
adequate opportunity
to perform the specific behavior. Personality
traits may be
conscious, nonconscious,
or a mixture of both.
Motives and personality traits are the result of social learning and inherited capacities
to gain satisfaction from selected stimuli. These inherited capacities serve as proclivities
toward self-selection into situations in which they can be satisfied. These proclivities
also serve to focus attention
and learning in such self-selected situations.
There is
substantial empirical support for this assertion. Space limitations prevent a review of
the relevant literature. However, the reader is referred to Starr and McCartney (1983)
for a theory that accounts for the genetic inheritance of such proclivities and Bouchard,
Lykken, McGue, Segal, and Tellegen (1990) for a review of the literature concerning
genetic inheritance of motives and personality traits.
Conscious intentions are cognitively formulated statements of the kinds of behavior
in which one plans to engage in the future. Conscious intentions are a function of values
and efficacy expectations.
Motives, personality
traits, and intentions
interact with
perceived situational
variables to produce resultant behavior. Perceived situational
variables are a function of objective situational
variables and individual perceptions
of the degree to which such variables facilitate or constrain
behavior. Individual
inclinations to perceive objective situational variables as constraining
or facilitating are
a function of individual
traits such as generalized
optimism and locus of control
orientation.
Objective situational
variables provide cues to act, guidance, constraints
on, and
reinforcement
for specific behaviors. Strong situations mute behavioral expression of
motives, traits and intentions.
Strong situations are situations in which appropriate
behavior is clearly signaled by cues, guidance, and rewards and inappropriate
behavior
is clearly signaled by constraints
and punishment
(Mischel, 1973). In addition to
signaling appropriate
and inappropriate
behavior, situational
variables also arouse
motives for which the situational variables are salient. Individuals perceive situational
variables and make judgements about the likelihood that behaviors will be encouraged
and rewarded. Thus situational variables interact with motives and conscious intentions
to stimulate, direct, and sustain behavior. The specific functional relationship
among
these variables and between these variables and resultant behavior awaits further
theoretical development and empirical evidence. However, for the purpose of this paper,
we believe it is sufficient to assume that motivation
to engage in personalized
or
socialized CL behavior is a positive linear function of motives, personality traits, and
intentions plus an interactive function of (a) motives and intentions and (b) situational
variables.
A significant implication of the conscious-nonconscious
distinction is that long-term
prediction of global behavior patterns such as career choices, friendship ties, major
social commitments,
leadership or followership style, child rearing practices, and leisure
time activities can be determined
by nonconscious
motives and personality traits in
interaction
with the number and strength of incentives associated with the global
behavior in question. (See Spangler [1992] for a review of evidence concerning
one
nonconscious
motive, the achievement motive, for example.) We recognize that such
Personality
and Charismatic
Leadership
93
behavior can be tempered by cognitive choice and constraint. However, we argue that
cognitive self-regulation
of behavior itself can be determined by nonconscious
motives
or traits associated with affect such as the power motive and the trait of narcissism
(see studies by Isen, Means, Patrick, and Nowicki, 1982; Higgins, Klein, and Strauman,
1985; and Abramson
and Martin,
1981; for theory and research relevant to the
relationship between affect and cognition).
Another significant implication of the conscious-nonconscious
distinction is that in
contrast to conscious personality
traits, nonconscious
motives and traits are less
amenable to cognitive control and thus will be less affected by an individual’s awareness
of situational variables in his or her environment.
While the behavioral expression of
nonconscious
motives and personality
traits may be constrained
or aroused by
situational forces, the behavioral expression of such motives and traits is less likely to
be affected by cognitions alone.
Short-term behavior such as specific task behavior can be predicted from conscious
intentions. Long-term behavior can be predicted from intentions when such intentions
are translated into concrete and specific goals. Conscious intentions have their most
powerful effect on both short- and long-term
behavior
when deliberately
and
consciously transformed into specific goals with concrete or quantitative
indicators of
attainment
(Locke & Latham,
1990). Thus intentions
to “be successful” when
transformed into a goal such as “to reach the level of vice presidency in firm X within
Y years,” will be more predictive of behavior and are much more likely to be translated
into desired behavior than more general and abstract statements of intentions. Goals
are not motives or personality traits, but rather the result of choices made by individuals.
Goals may reflect either nonconscious
motives or conscious values or both. Specific,
concrete goals are powerful long-term predictors of behavior because they embody
much more than conscious intentions. In the formation of such goals, one reflects on
skills needed to attain the goals, one’s weaknesses and specific developmental
efforts
that need to be taken, the environmental
obstacles that need to be overcome, and the
sources of support that one can call upon in the pursuit of the goals. Further, as a
result of such deliberations,
one is likely to subjectively estimate the probability of goal
attainment and adjust one’s aspiration level to be as realistic as possible.
Concrete and specific goals provide a benchmark
against which one can use
feedback to measure progress, direct one’s attention to the kind of indicators to which
one can attend to assess progress, and permit one to establish a schedule against which
progress can be measured.
Thus concrete, specific goals permit one to monitor
progress toward goal attainment.
Failure to meet scheduled progress directs attention
to corrective action. The experience of progress in the pursuit of goals is intrinsically
rewarding and the experience of lack of progress is frustrating and dissatisfying. Thus,
when either nonconscious
motives or conscious
intentions
are transformed
into
specific, concrete goals such goals have powerful short- and long-term motivational
effects.
However, long-term
patterns
of behavior,
not directed by specific goals, are
determined predominantly
by nonconscious
motivation
and personality traits. Since
individuals are aware of conscious traits and values, and therefore their behavioral
expression, conscious traits and values are at least somewhat amenable to cognitive
control. We say “somewhat” because habituation,
or strength of prior learning, may
LEADERSHIP
94
QUARTERLY
Vol. 3 No. 2 1992
be so strong that even though individuals may be aware of their behavioral inclinations,
they may not be able to bring such inclinations
under cognitive control, especially in
highly stressful situations. Consider, for example, the difficulties individuals experience
in extinguishing
such behavior as heavy drinking, smoking, or losing one’s temper,
despite conscious intention to extinguish such behaviors.
According
to the theory presented here, nonconscious
and conscious processes
influence each other through their independent
impact on affect. Affect can drive and
direct cognitive processes such as search behavior, use of feedback, level of goal choice,
and memory. Both the experience of cognitions and the arousal of nonconscious
motives
can induce the experience of affect. For example, when an individual receives bad news,
such as the loss of a loved one, he or she becomes depressed. If an individual is insulted,
he or she is likely to become upset, frustrated, or angry. Once an individual is in a
particular
affective state such as depression
or contentedness,
the affective state
influences cognitive processes. For example, depressed individuals are likely to interpret
information
negatively.
Thus, while conscious
and nonconscious
processes may
analytically
be conceived of as independent
systems, both influence an individual’s
experience of affect, which in turn influences both systems.
These assertions
concerning
motivation
and behavior
provide the theoretical
framework
for the remainder
of this paper. We now turn to a discussion of the
personality characteristics that are theoretical antecedents to the two pure types of CLs.
PERSONALITY
ANTECEDENTS
OF PERSONALIZED
AND SOCIALIZED
CL
In this section we briefly summarize evidence relevant to several personality traits that
we believe theoretically differentiate personalized from socialized CLs. We selected these
personality traits because they have been shown to be associated with CL behavior,
or because they have been shown to be implicated in the exercise of power in a socialized
or personalized manner. Thus these traits may be useful in predicting personalized or
socialized CL.
The Need For Power
One motive relevant to the exercise of both personalized and socialized charismatic
leadership is the need for power (also referred to as n-pow or the power motive).
McClelland and his associates have conducted a substantial number of studies on the
need for power, over 100 at our last count. These studies provide convincing evidence
of both the construct validity and predictive validity of the n-pow motive measure. For
example, it has been shown that after the power need has been aroused, there is a marked
gain in norepinephrine
excretion in the subject’s urine and in subject’s physiological
activation
(Steele, 1973, 1977). Further,
the gain in norepinephrine
is positively
correlated (r = f .66, p < .05)with the amount of power imagery in stories written
after the need for power has been aroused. McClelland (1985) reviewed a number of
studies that show that arousal of n-pow is associated with increases in adrenalin,
dopamine, and endorphins in one’s blood stream.
Personality
and Charismatic
95
Leadership
Subjects
with high n-pow react more sensitively to power-related
stimuli than to
neutral stimuli (Davidson et al., 1980; McClelland et al., 1979) recall more “peak”
experiences that are described in power terms, and remember more power-related facts
relative to neutral facts than do low or neutral n-pow subjects (McAdams,
1982).
Individuals with high n-pow show more partiality toward ingratiating
followers than
individuals with low n-pow (Fodor & Farrow, 1979) and inhibit group discussion more
than low n-pow individuals.
As a consequence,
in one experiment,
the number of
alternatives considered were fewer and the quality of decisions lower for groups led
by high n-pow individuals (Fodor & Smith, 1982).
High n-pow individuals become more highly activated when supervising others than
low n-pow individuals (Fodor, 1984). High power motivated males report that they
have more arguments,
play competitive sports more, have less stable interpersonal
relations, favor more assertive foreign policies, experience more emotional problems,
and are more impulsively aggressive than less power motivated males (McClelland,
1985a, b). Such individuals are more self-aggrandizing.
The strive to be assertive and
collect symbols of power and prestige such as expensive cars and electronic equipment.
They surround themselves with lesser known people who can be dominated and they
frequently call attention to themselves (Winter, 1973). Further, they describe their role
in friendship
episodes in terms of opportunities
to be dominant
and controlling
(McAdams,
Healy, & Krause, 1982). In comparison
to low n-pow individuals,
high
n-pow individuals
are more assertive, less cooperative,
more deceitful, and more
exploitive of others (Terhune, 1968a, b); evaluate others as more negative (Watson,
1974); and see themselves as more rebellious, resentful, sulky, cynical, and bitter (Gough
& Heilbrun, 1975).
Thus the need for power appears to be a good candidate for use as an explanatory
variable and a predictor of personalized CL, especially under conditions in which this
need is aroused and behaviorally
activated. There is also evidence that the need for
power, in conjunction
with other needs, may be implicated in socialized as well as
personalized CL. We now turn to a discussion of empirical evidence which bears on
this possibility.
The leadership
Motive Pattern
In a discussion
of leadership,
McClelland
(1985) argued that high n-pow, in
combination
with a low affiliative need and high activity inhibition,
predisposes
individuals
to be effective leaders. McClelland
referred to this need pattern as the
Leadership Motive Pattern (LMP). Activity inhibition is defined as an unconscious
motive to use social influence, or to satisfy the power need, in socially desirable ways,
for the betterment of the collective rather than for personal self-interest. McClelland
et al. (1972) found that men’s expressions of n-pow in TAT stories varied qualitatively,
depending on whether the individual was high or low in activity inhibition.
Men low
in activity inhibition had power thoughts much more focused on personal dominance
or winning at someone else’s expense. However, for men scoring high on activity
inhibition,
power imagery was more often stated in terms of doing good for others,
for humanity, or for some worthy and presumably moral cause.
96
LEADERSHIP
QUARTERLY
Vol. 3 No. 2 1992
According to McClelland (1985), individuals who are high on n-pow and also high
on activity inhibition should make more effective managers, especially if n-pow is greater
than the need for affiliation. McClelland reasoned that n-pow is an appropriate motive
for meeting the role demands of positions of influence such as those found in large
complex organizations.
He also argued that because the LMP includes a low affiliative
need, this combination
of needs allow an individual to remain socially distant from
subordinates
and, therefore, to be more objective with respect to resource allocation,
delegation, and discipline. Individuals with a high affiliative need are assumed to manage
on the basis of personal relationships
and favoritism and to be unwilling to monitor
or discipline subordinates.
Further, McClelland argued that individuals with the LMP
enjoy work involving the exercise of power because it enables them to be in control.
The LMP theory enjoys considerable
empirical support. The combination
of high
n-pow, high activity inhibition,
and low need for affiliation has been shown to be
predictive of leader effectiveness and success in a number of studies including a crosssectional study of middle managers (McClelland & Burnham, 1976) and longitudinal
studies of entry-level managers (McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982) naval officers (Winter,
1987) and U.S. presidents (House et al., 1991). This combination
of needs has also been
shown to be predictive of socially responsible behavior of adults over a IO-year period
(Winter, McClelland, & Stewart, 1982).
Of particular interest with respect to the prediction of personalized versus socialized
leadership, is the role of activity inhibition in regulating and constraining
the socially
undesirable effects manifested by high n-pow individuals.
As the above studies show,
activity inhibition
in conjunction
with the n-pow is indeed predictive of managerial
success, charisma, and effectiveness in a number of studies. Further, this measure is
also associated
with expressions
of altruistic
intent, respect for institutionalized
authority, self-discipline,
and belief in a just world in TAT stories (McClelland et al.,
1972), and with socially responsible behavior of adults. High n-pow individuals who
are low on activity inhibition have strong tendencies for heavy drinking. However, high
n-pow individuals who are also high on activity inhibition show no unusual inclination
to consume alcohol (McClelland,
1985).
The above review suggests that individuals with a high need for power and low activity
inhibition will exhibit personalized behavior as their dominant mode of leadership and
that leaders with a high need for power and high activity inhibition will exhibit socialized
behavior as their dominant mode of leadership.
There are three additional well developed and validated measures of individual traits
to engage in exploitive use of power. These are the Machiavellianism
scale (Christie
& Geis, 1970), the Narcissism Personality
Inventory (Raskin & Hall, 1979) and the
Right Wing Authoritarianism
Scale (Altemeyer, 1981). It is likely that these measures,
in interaction
with the need for power, or used independently,
will be predictors of
personalized and socialized CL. In the following three sections we briefly summarize
the empirical research relevant to each of these traits.
Machiavellianism
Machiavellianism,
as conceived by Christie
disposition
to maximize
one’s self-interest
and Geis (1970)
at the expense
refers to an individual
of others by use of
Personality and Charismatic Leadership
97
manipulation
and deceit. Accordingly, individuals who score high on Machiavellianism,
as measured by Mach IV or Mach V scales (Christie & Geis, 1970) are described as
exhibiting the “Cool Syndrome” and individuals who score low on Machiavellianism
are described as being a “Soft Touch.” The “cool” syndrome of the high Mach is
characterized
by resistance to social influence, orientation
to task-related cognitions
rather than to emotional or moral involvement with others, and a strong tendency to
initiate and control interactions
with others. In contrast, the “soft touch” syndrome
of the low Maths is characterized by susceptibility to social influence, orientation
to
others that results in a tendency to be distracted
by affective, nontask
related
interpersonal
considerations,
and acceptance of control and structure initiated by
others.
Empirical
research has generally supported
the description
of high Maths as
possessing the “cool” syndrome (Christie & Geis, 1970; Drory & Gluskinos,
1980;
Epstein, 1969; Geis, Krupat, & Berger, 1965; Harris, 1966; Hegarty & Sims, 1979; Huber
& Neale, 1987; Oksenberg, 1968; Rim, 1966; Weinstein, Beckhouse, Blumstein, & Stein,
1968). The characteristic
“cool” syndrome of the high Maths is exhibited under
competitive conditions that (a) allow face-to-face interactions between high Maths and
others, (b) allow latitude for improvisation
of both content and timing of responses
to the task and to other people, and (c) are likely to induce “irrelevant affect”in situations
that permit considerations
that can interfere with manipulative
behavior and effective
bargaining (Christie & Geis, 1970). Low Maths experience affective arousal in such
situations while high Maths remain cool.
Machiavellianism
might easily be interpreted as a highly power-oriented
disposition.
However,
this is likely an erroneous
interpretation
of this trait.
Rather,
Machiavellianism
is a strong tendency to be amoral in the pursuit of one’s self-interest.
Naturally, this may be reflected in the pursuit and exercise of power when power serves
the self-interest of the individual involved.
Given that personalized
CLs manipulate
and dominate others for their own selfinterest, it seems likely that they would exhibit Machiavellian
behavior when it is in
their interest to do so. In contrast, socialized CLs who exercise power in a nonexploitive
manner for collective interests would theoretically be expected to exhibit a low level
of Machiavellian
behavior. These findings suggest that under competitive conditions
that allow face-to-face interaction, latitude for improvisation,
and arousal of irrelevant
affect, Machiavellianism
will be positively associated with personalized CL behavior.
Narcissism
There is a substantial
amount of empirical evidence relevant to the narcissistic
personality trait. The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) (Raskin & Hall, 1979)
has been used rather widely, and almost all of the findings based on this self-report scale
have been replicated using observation of subjects by others. The construction
of the
NPI was based on the following criteria: an inflated sense of self-importance
and
uniqueness; preoccupation
with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty,
status, prestige and superiority; expectations
of special favors without reciprocation;
seeking admiration
and attention from others; interpersonal
exploitiveness;
lack of
empathy; inability to tolerate criticism; indifference toward others; and relationships that
98
LEADERSHIP
QUARTERLY
Vol. 3 No. 2 1992
alternate between extremes of overidealization
and devaluation,
The NPI has been
demonstrated
to be a valid and reliable self-report inventory of narcissism (Emmons,
1981, 1984, 1987; Raskin, 1980; Raskin& Hall, 1979,1981; Raskin&Terry,
1988). Factor
analysis of NPI responses of two large samples of college students produced four separate
factors labelled: exploitivenessientitlement;
leadership/ authority; superiority/ arrogance;
and self-absorption/self-~miration
(Emmons, 1984, 1987).
There are several reasons to believe that narcissism
might be a personality
characteristic of personalized CLs. First, narcissism is strongly correlated with several
personality scales that measure individual self-confidence,
freedom from depression,
(Raskin, Novacek, & Hogan, 1991) self-perceptions
of social adjustment and freedom
from social anxiety (Emmons,
1984) capacity for status (Gough, 1988), and social
assertiveness (Raskin & Terry, 1988). Since charismatic leaders are theoretically highly
self-confident
and confident in the moral righteousness
of their beliefs (House, 1977)
and have also been demonstrated
empirically to be more self-confident
(House et al.,
1991; Howell & Higgins, 1990b; Smith, 1982), both logic and evidence converge to
suggest that narcissism might be a characteristic of some charismatic leaders.
However, narcissism is also a personality syndrome that includes many dispositions
and behavioral characteristics
of personalized leadership. NPI scores have been found
to be positively correlated with Machiavellianism
(Biscardi & &hill, 1985), generalized
anger and hostile responses (McCann & Biaggio, 1989), disinhibition,
susceptibility to
boredom, experience seeking (Emmons, 198 l), need for power as measured by the TAT
(Carroll,
1987), exhibitionism,
aggression,
and extraversion
(Emmons,
1984),
competitiveness
and tendencies to be “managerial
and autocratic,”
aggressive, and
sadistic (Raskin & Terry, 1988). Further, the NPI has been found to be negatively
associated with two dispositions that are generally positive and supportive of others:
empathy (Watson, Grisham, Trotter, & Biderman, 1984) and intrinsic religious values
which are indicative of transcending self-centered needs (Emmons, 1981). It is interesting
to note that narcissistic
persons repress or deny their more personally
offensive
characteristics (Emmons 1984; Raskin & Novacek, 1989).
Collectively, the narcissistic findings are quite frightening. They describe individuals
who are capable of being extremely charming and manipulative
and extremely cruel to
others. Such individuals appear to be willing to use their charm to engage in cruel and
punitive behavior whenever it is in their self-interest to do so. Further, narcissists appear
to experience little self-doubt or psychological disturbance as a result of their behavior.
Personality psychologists do not consider narcissism a psychological disorder, except
in the extreme, as the narcissists themselves experience little anxiety, guilt, or other
forms of psychological disturbance.
While narcissists very likely cause serious pain and
disturbance in others, they are best characterized as carriers of psychological problems
rather than individuals
who experience such problems. These findings suggest that
narcissistic leaders are very likely to engage in personalized
CL behavior as their
dominant mode of leading.
Authoritarianism
Altemeyer (1981) developed a theory of authoritarian
personality and a scale referred
to as “Right Wing Authoritarianism”
(RWA). Over a 15-year program of research,
Personality
and Charismatic
Leadership
99
Altemeyer has demonstrated
that his measure of RWA meets the conventional
requirements
of construct
validity and is predictive
of attitudes
and behaviors
theoretically assumed to be associated with the “authoritarian
personality syndrome.”
This syndrome is theoretically defined as a motivational
syndrome consisting of the
following three attitudinal clusters:
1.
2.
3.
Authoritarian
submission-a
high degree of submission to the authorities who
are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives.
Authoritarian
aggression-a
general aggressiveness
that is perceived to be
sanctioned by established authorities, directed against selective, usually lower
status persons.
Conventionalism-a
high degree of adherence to the social conventions that are
perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities (Altemeyer,
1981, p. 2).
These “attitudinal
clusters” refer to a tendency to respond in the same general way
toward authority, lower status others, and established social conventions.
Altemeyer
found evidence of strong covariation
among these three clusters based on factor
analyses. He then analyzed the relationships
between each of the three subscales and
a number of criterion variables used to measure the degree to which subjects’ responses
indicated authoritarian
behavior. Persons who score high on the RWA scale were found
to engage in a wide range of behaviors consistent with Altemeyer’s theory including
tendencies to be ethnocentric
and bigoted toward minorities, punitive toward lower
status individuals, and accepting of illegal acts done by government officials to harass
and intimidate their opponents.
High RWAs compared to low RWAs administered
higher levels of electrical shock to another in an experimental
mock-learning
situation
as a punishment
for having chosen the wrong answers; chose higher sentences to be
imposed on gay counter-demonstrators
as compared to anti-gay demonstrators;
and
were more intolerant
of ambiguity and more aggressive. They also did not realize,
recognize, or admit their aggressive tendencies and intolerance of ambiguity.
The above review suggests that CLs who are highly authoritarian
exhibit personalized
leader behavior as their dominant
mode of leadership,
and individuals
who are
nonauthoritarian
exhibit socialized leader behavior as their dominant leadership mode.
Efficacy Expectations, Self-Confidence, and locus of Control
One of the individual antecedents to behavior is an individual’s efficacy expectations.
Individuals who are confident in the efficacy of their behavior are more likely to take
action than those who are not (Bandura, 1986). There are two personality traits that
affect efficacy expectations: individual self-esteem and locus of control. Self-esteem and
locus of control are hypothesized to determine, in significant part, whether an individual
will have confidence in his or her ability to induce others to comply. According to
Subjective Expected Utility Theory (Kipnis, 1976; Tedeschi, Schlenker, & Lindskold,
1972), a leader’s choice of influence tactics depends, in significant part, on the degree
to which the leader expects others to comply. Accordingly, the greater the resistance
expected, the more the leader will rely on harsh, coercive, or manipulative
tactics. Thus,
100
LEADERSHIP
QUARTERLY
Vol. 3 No. 2 1992
if a follower is expected to comply readily, the leader will rely on mild suggestion and
rational persuasion. If the follower is expected to resist such mild influence tactics, the
leader will employ more forceful influence tactics such as offering strong rewards (or
bribes), or making threats of punishment.
Confidence in being able to influence others is predictive of leaders’choice of influence
tactics. Kipnis (1976), in his book The Power Holders, reviewed a number of studies
that demonstrated
that when leaders lack confidence in their ability to influence others,
sanctions-whether
positive or negative-are
most likely to be invoked.
Experimental
studies by Goodstadt and Kipnis (1970), Rotbart (1968), Michener and
Burt (1974), and Kipnis and Cosentino (1969) demonstrated
support for Subjective
Expected Utility Theory. In a study of 103 managers, the correlation
between the
manager’s expectations
of being able to improve employee performance
and the
manager’s endorsement
of use of coercion was - .41. Thus the lower the expectation
of successful influence, the more coercion was recommended.
Managers who had low
self-confidence
also said that the odds were poor that they could personally correct
ineffective performance. The correlation was .39 between ratings of self-confidence and
ratings of expectations
of successful influence. Further, Rasner (1966) analyzed the
biographies
and the personalities
of totalitarian
and democratic
political leaders.
Totalitarian
leaders were more insecure in private life and lower in self-esteem.
Finally, Goodstadt and Hjelle (1973) administered
Rotter’s locus of control measure
to persons in a laboratory
experiment.
The locus of control scale assesses one’s
generalized belief that one’s own behavior determines what happens to him or her, rather
than chance, or other external forces, such as other individuals, rules, bureaucracies,
nature and the like. The subjects were given access to a wide range of means of
influencing another person. The range of means included the power to reward, to shift
persons to new work environments,
to persuade, to use expert power, and to punish.
Those who saw themselves as weak and powerless, as evidenced by their scores on the
locus of control scale, selected punishing means of influence far more frequently than
persons who perceived themselves to be powerful. Persons who believed they were
powerful attempted to produce change in the other through persuasion.
Kipnis (1976, p. 188) states that “people who doubt their own competence as a source
of influence may be more likely to see others as resisting when, in fact, such resistance
may not exist at all.” Kipnis notes that psychological
studies have shown that in
situations in which it is only possible to influence another by relying on personal powers
of persuasion, individuals with low self-esteem and self-confidence
do not attempt to
influence others (Hochbaum,
1954, cited in Kipnis, 1976, p. 118).
Kipnis (1976, p. 119) concluded from his research and that which he reviewed: “Thus,
when a person feels of little worth, he or she will be strongly attracted to harsh means
of influence, if they are available. Underneath
this behavior is the belief that gentle
means of influence will not work since no one respects me enough to do what I say
if I only ask.” He goes on to state that “what is of interest in the Goodstadt and Hjelle
research is the conclusion
that, even if given a wide range of means for influencing
other persons and thereby having their objective powerlessness reduced . . persons who
have a history of experiencing
lack of power will still choose destructive forms of
influence.. ..Subjective
odds of being able to influence others appear to shift to the
difficult end of the scale as feelings of self-worth decrease” (Kipnis, 1976, p. 120).
Personality
and Charismatic
Leadership
101
Collectively, these findings suggest that: (a) the more internal the beliefs and the higher
the self-esteem of a leader, the higher the efficacy expectations of the leader with respect
to his or her ability to induce compliance through supportive and rational influence
tactics; (b) the more external the beliefs and the lower the self-esteem of the leader,
the lower the efficacy expectations with respect to his or her ability to induce compliance
through rational
and supportive
tactics; and (c) individuals
with high efficacy
expectations will choose rational and supportive influence methods and individuals with
low efficacy expectations will choose manipulative
and coercive influence tactics. Thus,
socialized CLs will likely have internal beliefs and high self-esteem and personalized
CLs will likely have external beliefs and low self-esteem.
IMPLICATIONS OF PERSONALIZED CLs’ IMPACT
ON FOLLOWERS AND ORGANIZATIONS
Given the personality
characteristics
of personalized
CLs specified above, several
implications 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 CLs
may evoke feelings of obedience or loyal submission in followers. Graham (1988) calls
this phenomenon
“habituated followership”: followers embrace their subordinate status
so completely that failure to comply with the leader’s request is unthinkable.
Thus, in
contrast to socialized leaders, personalized
leaders undermine
the development
of
followers’ self-responsibility,
self-initiative and self-control.
It is interesting to speculate on the psychological relationship
that exists between
personalized 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 imply
a better state of existence for followers if they become committed to the leader’s
movement. Further, participation
in the movement gives intrinsic meaning to the life
of followers: something to live for, to be a part of, and to contribute to, in an intrinsically
satisfying and meaningful
way. (See Shamir, House and Arthur 119921, for a more
detailed discussion of how charismatic leaders appeal to the self-concept and intrinsic
motivation 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 Benito
Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, Jim Jones, and Fidel Castro.
What appears to be equally interesting, is that the remote followers of such leaders
either do not become disenchanted
with the leader and the movement, or do so long
after the immediate followers become disenchanted. This is likely because the immediate
LEADERSHIP
QUARTERLY
Vol. 3 No. 2 1992
followers 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 leaders
on the basis of identification,
devotion, and love eventually must be managed by the
leader in extremely coercive ways such as threat of imprisonment,
physical punishment,
or execution. Thus, personalized CL, if left unbridled, can have severe detrimental, even
disastrous, consequences for followers.
We 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
through
laboratory
experiments,
management
simulations,
and field research, that there are
strong forces that tempt those in power to see themselves as superior to others whom
they lead and to deal with followers in harsh and even inhumane ways when the followers
disagree with the leader’s wishes. He refers to the process by which leaders adopt such
attitudes and behaviors as the metamorphic
effect of the possession of power.
Hodgkinson
(1983) argues that since charisma
may have either beneficial
or
malevolent effects, we need to first understand the charismatic phenomenon
and beware
of its consequences.
What, then, can be done to harness the positive forces of charisma
without destroying its potential for social gain? The answer appears to lie in the kind
of preventative
mechanisms
that will serve to prevent followers from entering into
relationships 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.
To address the possibility of abuse of power by such individuals requires society-wide
norms, laws, and institutional
constraints such as checks and balances on the exercise
of personalized power. Norms and laws that enforce democracy, openness or full disclosure
of activities and their effects, and removal or control of such leaders are required. While
such norms and laws are available in the United States and in most democratic societies,
these are insufficient to completely prevent the emergence of such leaders and their
consequences. Examples are plentiful: the anonymous leaders of the Ku Klux Klan; the
founder and leader of est, Werner Erhard; the religious cult led by Jim Jones; and the
abuse of power by numerous corporate and political executives. Since legislation is not
completely adequate for the task, another source of prevention and remedy is awareness
of the personalized charismatic phenomenon
and preparation of members of the society
to recognize and resist following the orders of personalized leaders in crimes of obedience.
CONCLUSION
The above review of empirical evidence rather clearly shows that there are personality
traits that are very likely to be antecedents
of charismatic
leadership.
There are
important implications
of these findings. First, CLs may be identified and selected on
the basis of psychological
assessment. Second, several personality traits are likely to
be associated with, and predictive of, personalized and socialized CL. Third, leadership
training,
management
development
efforts, role modelling
by leaders, and career
counseling
efforts directed at changing leader behavior need to be designed with
consideration
given to the personality traits of the individuals involved.
103
Personality and Charismatic Leadership
It is advocated by some leadership scholars that training managers to develop CL
behaviors will improve their personal effectiveness, enhance followers’ motivation, and
facilitate the attainment of organizational
objectives (Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo,
1988). Others have questioned whether it is morally defensible to train CL behaviors
(Roberts & Bradley, 1988). We have argued in this paper that charisma may be used
for manipulative
and self-seeking purposes, ultimately leading to the deception and
exploitation
of followers. Thus, prior to embarking on training efforts, it is essential
to develop appropriate
selection criteria for candidates such that the probability
of
socially desirable and functional effects on followers, organizations,
and society are
increased and deleterious effects are minimized.
Research concerning
individual characteristics
and organizational
conditions that
enhance the efficacy of leadership development efforts is clearly required. It is doubtful
that individuals who are motivated by uninhibited
power needs, and characterized by
narcissism, authoritarianism,
Machiavellianism,
low self-esteem and external locus of
control will respond positively to such training.
To conclude, in this paper we have reviewed the theory and empirical evidence
relevant to individual characteristics
associated with charismatic leadership. We hope
that this review will stimulate practitioners
to seriously consider their own leadership
behaviors,
and design organizational
settings and interventions
to minimize the
occurrence of personalized
CL. Further, we hope that this review will stimulate the
further development of theory and encourage empirical research relevant to the exercise
of CL.
REFERENCES
Abramson, L. & D. Martin. (1981). Depression and the causal inference process. In J. Harvey,
W. Ickes, & R. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (pp. 117-168). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.
Ashour, A.S. & G. Johns. (1983). Leader influence through operant principles: A theoretical
and methodological
framework. Human Relations 36, 603-626.
Avolio, B.J. & B.M. Bass. (1988). Transformational
leadership, charisma, and beyond. In J.G.
Hunt, B.R. Baliga, H.P. Dachler & C.A. Schriesheim (Eds)., Emerging leadership vistas
(pp. 2949). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations
of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barnlund, D.C. (1962). Consistency of emergent leadership in groups with changing tasks and
members. Speech Monographs 29,45-52.
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B.M. (1988). Evolving perspectives on charismatic leadership. In J.A. Conger and R.A.
Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness
(pp. 40-77). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bennis, W. & B. Nanus. (1985). Gaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper
& Row.
Biscardi, D. & T. Schill. (1985). Correlations
of narcissistic traits with defensive style,
Machiavellianism,
and empathy. Ps_vchoIogical Reports 57, 354.
104
LEADERSHIP
Borgatta, E.F., A.S. Couch, & R.F. Bales. (1954). Some findings
QUARTERLY
Vol. 3 No. 2 1992
relevant to the great man theory
of leadership. American Sociological Review 19, 755-759.
Bouchard, D.T., Jr., D.T. Lykken, M. McGue, N.L. Segal, & A. Tellegen. (1990). Sources of
human psychological
differences: The Minnesota study of twins reared apart. Science,
2230-2250.
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Carroll, L. (1987). A study of narcissism, affiliation, intimacy, and power motives among students
in business administration.
Psychological Reports 6 1, 355-358.
Christie, R. & F.L. Geis. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.
Clover, W.H. (1988). Transformational
leaders: Team performance, leadership ratings and first
hand impressions.
In K.E. Clark & M.B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership. West
Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.
Conger, J.A. & R.N. Kanungo. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership
in organizational
settings. Academy of Management 22, 637-647.
Conger, J.A. & R.N. Kanungo. (1988). Training charismatic leadership: A risky and critical task.
In J.A. Conger & R.N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership, the elusive factor in
organizational effectiveness (pp. 309-323). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Curphy, G.J. (1990). An empirical evaluation of Bass’ (1985) theory of transformational
and
transactional
leadership. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department
of Psychology,
University of Minnesota.
Davidson, R.J., C. Saron, & D.C. McClelland. (1980). Effects of personality and semantic content
of stimuli on augmenting and reducing in the event-related potential. Biological Psychology
11, 249-255.
DePree, M. (1989). Leadership is an art. New York: Dell.
Drory, A. & U.M. Gluskinos. (1980). Machiavellianism
and leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology 65, 8 l-86.
Emmons, R.A. (1981). Relationship
between narcissism and sensation seeking. Psychological
Reports 48, 241-250.
Emmons, R.A. (1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of the narcissistic personality
inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment 48, 291-300.
Emmons, R.A. (1987). Narcissism: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 52, 1 I-17.
Epstein, G.F. (1969). Machiavelli and the devil’s advocate. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 1, 38-41.
Evans, M.G. (1970). The effects of supervisory
behavior on the path-goal
relationship.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 5, 277-298.
Fodor, E.M. (1984). The power motive and reactivity to power stresses. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 47, 853-859.
Fodor, E.M. & D.L. Farrow. (1979). The power motive as an influence on use of power. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 37, 2091-2097.
Fodor, E.M. & T. Smith. (1982). The power motive as an influence on group decision making.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42, 178-185.
Geis, F.L., E. Krupat, & D. Berger. (1965). Taking over in group discussion. Unpublished
manuscript, New York University.
Goodstadt, B.E. & L.A. Hjelle. (1973). Power to the powerless: Locus of control and the use
of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 27, 190-196.
Goodstadt,
B.E. & D. Kipnis. (1970). Situational influences on the use of power. Journal of
Applied Psychology 54, 201-207.
Gough, H.G. (1988). Manual for the Calzforniu psychological inventory (3rd ed.). Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Personality
Gough,
and Charismatic
Leadership
105
H.G. & A.B. Heilbrun, Jr. (1975). The adjective checklist manual. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Graen, G. & J.F. Cashman. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations:
A developmental
approach. In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers (pp.
143-165). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.
Graham, J.W. (1988). Transformational
leadership: Fostering follower autonomy, not automatic
followership.
In J.G. Hunt, B.R. Baliga, H.P. Dachler, & C.A. Schriesheim (Eds.),
Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 73-79). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Harris, T.M. (1966). Machiavellianism, judgemenr, independence and attitudes toward teammate
in a cooperative judgement task. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University.
Hegarty, W.H. & H.P. Sims, Jr. (1979). Organizational
philosophy, policies, and objectives
related to unethical decision behavior: A laboratory experiment.
Journal of Applied
Psychology 64, 331-338.
Higgins, E., R. Klein, Kc T. Strauman. (1985). Self-concept discrepancy theory: A psychological
model for distinguishing
among different aspects of depression and anxiety. Social
Cognition 3, 5 l-76.
Hodgkinson, C. (1983). 7i?e philosophy of leadership. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Hogan, R., R. Raskin, & D. Fazzini. (1990). The dark side of charisma. In K.E. Clark & M.B.
Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 343-354). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library
of America.
Hollander, E.P. (1964). Leaders, groups, and influence. New York: Oxford University Press.
House, R.J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly
16, 321-338.
House, R.J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.),
Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University
Press.
House, R.J. & M.L. Baetz. (1979). Leadership: Some empirical generalizations and new research
directions. Research in Organizational Behavior 10, 341-423.
House, R.J. & B. Shamir. (1992). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic and
visionary theories. Working paper, Department of Management, Wharton School of the
University of Pennsylvania.
House, R.J., W.D. Spangler, & J. Woycke. (1991). Personality and charisma in the U.S. presidency:
A psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly 36, 364-396.
Howell, J.M. (1988). Two faces of charisma: Socialized and personalized
leadership in
organizations. In J.A. Conger & R.A. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive
factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 213-236). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Howell, J.M. & B.J. Avolio. (1992). The ethics of charismatic
leadership: Submission
of
liberation? Academy of Management Executive 6,43-54.
Howell, J.M. & C.A. Higgins. (1990a). Champions of technological innovation. Administrative
Science Quarterly 35, 3 17-34 1.
Howell, J.M. & CA. Higgins. (1990b). Leadership behaviors, influence tactics, and career
experiences of champions of technological innovation. Leadership Quarterly 1, 249-264.
Howell, J.M. & R.J. House. (1992). Socialized and personalized charisma: An essay on the bright
and dark sides of leadership.
Unpublished
manuscript,
Western Business School,
University of Western Ontario.
Huber, V.L. & M.A. Neale. (1987). Effects of self and competitor goals on performance in an
interdependent
bargaining task. Journal of Applied Psychology 72, 197-203.
Isen, A., B. Mans, R. Patrick, & G. Nowicki. (1982). Some factors influencing decision-making
strategy and risk taking.In M. Clark & S. Fiske (Eds.), Affect and cognition: 7he 17th
annual Carnegie symposium on cognition (pp. 243-262). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
106
LEADERSHIP
QUARTERLY
Vol. 3 No. 2 1992
Kenny, D.A. & S.J. Zaccaro. (1983). An estimate of variance due to traits in leadership. Journal
of Applied Psychology 68, 678-685.
Kipnis, D. (1976). Thepowerholders.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kipnis, D. & J. Cosentino. (1969). Use of leadership powers in industry. Journal of Applied
Psychology 53, 460-466.
Locke, E.A. & G.P. Latham. (1990). A theory of goalsetting and taskperformance.
Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lord, R.G., C.L. De Vader, & G.M. Alliger. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between
personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity and generalization
procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology 7 1,402-4 10.
Mann, R.D. (1959). A review of the relationships between personality and performance in small
groups. Psychological Bulletin 56, 241-270.
McAdams, D.P. (1982). Experiences of intimacy and power: Relationships between social motives
and autobiographical
memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42,292-302.
McAdams, D.P., S. Healey, & S. Krause. (1982). Relationships between social motives and
patterns of friendship.
Unpublished
manuscript,
Department
of Psychology,
Loyola
University.
McCann, J.T. & M.K. Biaggio. (1989). Narcissistic personality features and self-reported anger.
Psychological Reports 64, 55-58.
McClelland, D.C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York: Irvington.
McClelland, D.C. (1985a). How motives, skills and values determine what people do. American
Psychologist 40, 8 12-825.
McClelland, D.C. (1985b). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
McClelland, D.C. & R.E. Boyatzis. (1982). Leadership motive pattern and long-term success
in management. Journal of Applied Psychology 67, 737-743.
McClelland, D.C. & D.H. Burnham. (1976). Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business
Review 54, 100-l I I.
McClelland, D.C., R.J. Davidson, & C. Saron. (1979). Evoked potential indicators of the impact
of the need for power on perception and learning. Unpublished
manuscript,
Harvard
University.
McClelland, D.C., W.B. Davis, R. Kahn, & E. Wanner. (1972). The drinking man: Alcohol and
human motivation. New York: Free Press.
Michener, A. & M.R. Burt. (1974). Legitimacy as a base of social influence. In J.T. Tedeschi
(Ed.), Perspectives on socialpower. Chicago: Aldine.
Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization
of personality.
Psychological Review 80, 252-283.
Musser, S.J. (1988). The determination
of positive and negative charismatic leadership.
Unpublished
manuscript,
Department
of Management
and Business, Messiah College,
Grantham, PA.
Oksenberg, L. (1968). Machiavellianism
and organization
in five-man task-oriented
groups.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University.
Podsakoff, P.M., S.B., MacKenzie, R.H. Morrman, & R. Fetter. (1990). Transformational
leader
behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational
citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly l(2), 107-142.
Podsakoff, P.M., W.D. Todor, & R. Skov. (1982). Effect of leader contingent and non-contingent
reward and punishment behaviors on subordinate performance and satisfaction. Academy
of Management Journal 25, 8 1O-82 1.
Raskin, R.N. (1980). Narcissism and creativity: Are they related? Psychological Reports 46, 5560.
Personality
and Charismatic
Leadership
107
Raskin, R. & C.S. Hall. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological Reports 45,
55-60.
Raskin, R. & C.S. Hall. (1981). The narcissistic personality inventory: Alternate form reliability
and further evidence of construct validity. Journal of Personality Assessment 45, 159-162.
Raskin, R. & J. Novacek. (1989). A MMPI description of the narcissistic personality. Journal
of Personality Assessment 53, 66-80.
Raskin, R., J. Novacek, & R. Hogan. (1991). Narcissistic self-esteem management. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 60, 9 1 l-9 18.
Raskin, R. & H. Terry. (1988). A principal-components
analysis of the narcissistic personality
inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 54, 890-902.
Rasner, J.R. (1966). Personal characteristics of political decision makers. Peace Research Society
International 5, 162-181.
Rim, Y. (1966). Machiavellianism
and decisions involving risk. British Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology 5, 5-36.
Roberts, N.C. & R.T. Bradley. (1988). Limits of charisma. In J.A. Conger & R.A. Kanungo
(Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 253275). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ross, SM. & L.R. Offermann. (1991). Transformational
leaders: Measurement
of personality
attributes and work group performance.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Society for Industrial Organizational
Psychology, St. Louis, MO.
Rotbart, M. (1968). Effects of motivation, equity, and compliance on the use of reward and
punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 8, 143-147.
Roush, P.E. & L.E. Atwater. (1992). Using the MBTI to understand transformational
leadership
and self-perception accuracy. Military Psychology 4, 17-34.
Sashkin, M. (1988). The visionary leader. In J.A. Conger and R.N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic
leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Starr, S. & K. McCartney. (1983). How people make their own environments:
A theory of
genotype-environment
effects. Child Development 54,424-435.
Shamir, B., R.J. House, & M. Arthur. (1992). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership.
Organization Science (in press).
Smith, B.J. (1982). An initial test to a theory of charismatic leadership based on the responses
of subordinates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
Spangler, W.D. (1992). Validity of questionnaire
and TAT measures of need for achievement:
Two meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, in press.
Steele, R.S. (1973). The psychological concomitants
of psychogenic motive arousal in college
males. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
Steele, R.S. (1977). Power motivation,
activation,
and inspirational
speeches. Journal of
Personality 45, 53-64.
Stogdill, R.M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature.
Journal of Psychology 25, 35-7 1.
Tedeschi, J.T., B.R. Schlenker, & S. Lindskold. (1972). The exercise of power and influence:
The source of influence. In J.T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Social influenceprocesses. Chicago: Aldine.
Terhune, K.W. (1968a). Motives, situation, and interpersonal conflict within prisoners’dilemma.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Monograph Supplement) 8, l-24.
Terhune,
K.W. (1968b). Studies of motives, cooperation
and conflict within laboratory
microcosms. In G.H. Snyder (Ed.), Studies in international conjhct (pp. 29-59). Buffalo,
NY: University of Buffalo Studies.
Tichy, N.M. & M.A. Devanna. (1986). The transformational leader. New York: John Wiley.
108
LEADERSHIP
QUARTERLY
Vol. 3 No. 2 1992
Watson, P.J., S.O. Grisham, M.V. Trotter, & M.D. Biderman. (1984). Narcissism and empathy:
Validity evidence for the narcissistic
personality
inventory.
Journal of Personality
Assessment 48, 301-305.
Watson, R.I., Jr. (1974). Motivational and sex differences in aggressive behavior. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organizations (R.A. Henderson & T.
Parsons, Trans.). New York: Free Press.
Weinstein, E.A., L.S. Beckhouse, P.W. Blumstein, & R.B. Stein. (1968). Interpersonal strategies
under conditions of gain or loss. Journal of Personality 36, 616-634.
Winter, D. (1973). Ekepower motive. New York: Free Press.
Winter, D. (1987). Leader appeal, leader performance,
and the motives profile of leaders and
followers: A study of American presidents and elections. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 52, 96-202.
Winter, D. (1991). Predicting long term management
success from TAT measures of power
motivation and responsibility.
The Leadership Quarterly, 2(2), 6-80.
Winter, D., D.C. McClelland, & A. Stewart. (1982). A new defense of the liberal arts. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Yukl, G.A. & D.D. Van Fleet. (1982). Cross-situational,
multimethod research on military leader
effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 30, 87-108.
Zaccaro, S.J., R.J. Foti, & D.A. Kenny. (1991). Self-monitoring
and trait-based variance in
leadership: An investigation of leader flexibility across multiple group situations. Journal
of Applied Psychology 76,308-3 15.