Lecture 7 Reading:
Charismatic and Transformational Leadership
Yukl (2006) ‘Charismatic and transformational leadership’, in Leadership in
Organizations, Upper Saddle River: Pearson.




DEFINITION: charisma occurs during a social crisis when a leader
emerges with a radical vision that offers a solution to the crisis and
attracts followers who believe in the vision (Weber, 1947)
‘Charisma’ describes a form of influence based not on tradition or formal
authority but rather on follower perceptions that the leader is endowed
with exceptional qualities
DEFINITION: Transformational leadership appeals to the moral values of
followers in an attempt to raise their consciousness about ethical issues
and to mobilise their energy and resources to reform institutions
(McGregor Burns, 1978)
Transactional leaders on the other hand motivates followers by appealing
to their self-interest and exchanging benefits
Attribution Theory of Charismatic Leadership


Conger and Kanungo (1987) proposed a theory of charismatic leadership
based on the assumption that charisma is an attributional phenomenon
Follower attribution of charismatic qualities to a leader is jointly
determined by the leader’s behaviour, expertise and aspects of the
situation
Leader Traits and Behaviours
 Charisma is more likely to be attributed to leaders who advocate a vision
that is highly different/conflicting from the status quo, but still within
acceptance by followers
 Non-charismatic leaders support the status quo or only make
incremental changes
 Charismatic leaders’ ways of achieving their vision must be
unconventional in order to impress followers and has superior expertise
 Leaders viewed as charismatic when they make self-sacrifices, take
personal risks and incur high costs to achieve the vision
 Followers more likely to attribute charisma to leaders who inspire them
with emotional appeals than to leaders who use authority or a
participative decision process
 Use of authority may gain more expert power if strategy is
successful but unlikely to appear charismatic if they don’t justify
the strategy with an ideological vision
 Followers who participate in the decision making process may be
satisfied and motivated but the leader won’t appear extraordinary
 Charismatic leaders influence people to accomplish great things that they
thought was impossible
 Leaders need to be sensitive to the needs and values of followers as well
as to the environment
Influence Processes
 Conger (1989): interviews conducted to explain why followers of
charismatic leaders become so strongly committed to the task/mission
 Primary influence process is personal identification
 Influence derived from a follower’s desire to please and imitate the
leader
 Leader approval becomes part of self-worth and leader approval
instils a deeper sense of obligation to live up to leader’s future
expectations
 Influence of a charismatic leader also due to internalization of new values
and beliefs by followers
 Conger (1989) emphasized that it is more important for followers to
adopt leader’s attitudes and beliefs about objectives and effective
strategies than to merely imitate superficial aspects i.e. mannerisms,
gestures
Facilitating Conditions
 Contextual variables especially important for charismatic leadership
 Charismatic leaders more likely to emerge in crisis situations
 Unlike Weber (1947), Conger and Kanungo do not consider an objective
crisis to be necessary for charismatic leadership
 A leader may be able to create dissatisfaction with current
conditions and simultaneously provide a vision of a more
promising future even in the absence of a genuine crisis
 The leader might create a crisis where one didn’t exist previously,
setting the stage for demonstration of superior expertise like
charismatic leaders show
Self-Concept Theory of Charismatic Leadership


House (1977): explanation of charismatic leadership in terms of a set of
testable propositions involving observable processes
 Identifies how charismatic leaders behave, traits, and skills and
conditions in which they are most likely to emerge
 Limitation: ambiguity about the influence processes
Shamir, House and Arthur (1993): added new developments about
human motivation
 Behaviour is expressive of a person’s feelings, values and selfconcept as well as being pragmatic and goal oriented
 Self-concept is composed of a hierarchy of social identities and
values
 People are intrinsically motivated to enhance and defend their
self-esteem and self-worth
 People are intrinsically motivated to maintain consistency among
various aspects of their self-concept and between their selfconcept and their behaviour
Indicators of Charisma
 Leader-follower relationship illustrates evidence of charismatic
leadership







Followers perceive that the leader’s beliefs are correct
Willingly obey the leader
Feel affection toward the leader
Emotionally involved in the mission of the organisation
High performance goals
Believe that they can contribute to the success of the mission
Attribution of extraordinary ability is likely, but not necessary for
charismatic leadership
Leader Traits and Behaviours
 Leadership behaviours that explain how a charismatic leader influences
the attitudes and behaviour of followers:
 Articulating an appealing vision
 Using strong, expressive forms of communication
 Taking personal risks and making self-sacrifices to attain the
vision
 Communicating high expectations
 Expressing confidence in followers
 Leading by example
 Managing follower impressions of the leader
 Building identification with the group or organisation
 Empower followers
Influence Processes
 Sources of leader influence over followers:
 Social identification: when people take pride in being part of the
group ad regard membership as one of their most important social
identities (Ashforth and Mael, 1989); more willing to place the
needs of the group above their own; results in strengthening of
shared values, beliefs and behaviour norms; can also be increased
by skilful use of symbols, rituals and ceremonies; story telling as a
source of symbolic action
 Internalization: occurs when attainment of task objectives
becomes a way for followers to express their values and social
identities. Charismatic leaders articulate a vision describing task
objectives in ideological terms that reflect follower values;
ultimate form of internalization occurs when followers come to
view their work role as inseparably linked to their self-concept
and self-worth
 Augmentation of individual and collective self-efficacy: selfefficacy is the belief that one is competent and capable of attaining
difficult task objectives; when collective efficacy is high, people are
more willing to cooperate with members of their group in a joint
effort. A leader can enhance the self-efficacy and collective efficacy
of followers by articulating an inspiring vision, expressing
confidence that they can accomplish the collective task and
provide stimulation
Facilitating Conditions
 Motivational effects of charismatic leaders more likely to occur when the
leader’s vision is congruent with existing follower values and identities
 Should define task roles in ideological terms that will appeal to followers
 E.g. high-tech industries’ ideological appeals include scientific
progress, economic development, etc.
 Work roles with low potential for ideological appeals includes
simple, repetitive work with little inherent meaning/social
significance
 A crisis condition is not necessary for the effectiveness of charismatic
leadership but it is more likely to occur when a group/organisation is in
serious trouble (Shamir et al.)
 However, unclear what must be done to ensure survival and
prosperity and considerable anxiety or panic among members (e.g.
Bligh, Kohles, & Meindl, 2004)
 Crisis conditions favour the emergence of a leader who can interpret the
crisis and offer credible strategies for coping with it successfully
 BUT charismatic effects could be temporary unless the vision
continues to be relevant after the immediate crisis is over (Boal &
Bryson, 1988)
Other Conceptions of Charisma
Psychodynamic Processes
 Theorists attempt to explain the seemingly irrational influence of some
charismatic leaders who are idolized
 Intense personal identification of followers with such leaders is explained
in terms of psychodynamic processes such as regression, transference
and projection
 Regression: return to feelings and behaviours typical of a younger
age
 Transference: feelings toward an important figure from the past
shifted towards someone in the present
 Projection: process of attaining undesirable feelings and motives
to someone else, thereby shifting the blame for the things they feel
guilty for
 Followers suffering from fear, guilt or alienation may experience a feeling
of empowerment and transcendence by submerging their identity in that
of a seemingly superhuman leader
Social Contagion and Charisma
 Meindl (1990) examines attributed charisma that focuses on influence
processes among followers themselves than on how leaders directly
influence individual followers
 “Social contagion”: spontaneous spread of emotional and behavioural
reactions among a group of people





Many people have a heroic social identity in their self-concept; these
people are waiting for a leader and a cause to activate it (Meindl, 1990)
Activation occurs more often in a social crisis where their selfesteem/survival is threatened
It does not matter who becomes the symbolic leader as long as they are
sufficiently attractive and qualify for the role, so loyalty could shift if
another person becomes more suitable for the position
In the process of social contagion, attribution of charisma to the leader
occurs as part of the attempt by followers to understand and rationalize
their new feelings and behaviour
Qualities attributed to a leader may become highly exaggerated as
rumours and stories circulate among people without direct contact to the
leader e.g. leaders in religious cults and political movements
Close and Distant Charisma
 Shamir (1995) proposed that attributions of charisma for followers who
have close contract with the leader differ from those that view the leader
from a distance
 Students interviewed in Israel to determine if differences could be
verified
 Results showed that the amount of direct interaction between
leader and follower affects attributions of charisma
 Distant charismatics defined in terms of substantive achievements
and effects on follower political attitudes; attributions affected by
performance cues and shared stereotypes
 Close charismatics defined by effects on follower motivation, task
behaviour and identification with the leader; attributions affected
by leader behaviour and interpersonal skills
 Limitations of study: Yagil’s (1998) study in the Israeli army did not find
support for the above; more research needed on how distance affects
attributions of charisma. Antonakis and Atwater (2002) cite the
importance of distinguishing between vertical social distance (proximity
in the authority hierarchy) and physical distance
Routinization of Charisma
 Succession crisis when charisma is dependent on personal identification
with an individual leader and if the leader passes away or departs
(Bryman, 1992; Mintzberg, 1983)
 Charismatic leaders can do several things to maintain their influence on
the organisation after they depart (Bryman, 1992; Trice & Beyer, 1986)
 Three approaches for routinization of charisma
1. Transfer charisma to designated successor through rites and
ceremonies. However, some leaders may be unwilling to find a
successor due to defense mechanisms, preoccupation with the
mission, and fear of potential rivals
2. Create an administrative structure that will continue to implement
the leader’s vision with rational-legal authority (Weber, 1947).
However, this can reduce the effectiveness of the organisation
because it is difficult to maintain the same level of enthusiastic
commitment when “bland bureaucrats” replace the leader.
Conflicts are likely to occur between the administrators and the
charismatic leader. E.g. Candy Lightner, founder of MADD
(Mothers Against Drunk Driving) (Weed, 1993)
3. Embed the leader’s vision in the culture of the organisation by
influencing followers to internalize it and empower them to
implement it
Consequences of Charismatic Leadership

Section discusses the positive and negative consequences of charismatic
leadership for followers and the organisation
Positive and Negative Charismatics
 Not always clear when particular leaders should be classified as positive
or negative charismatics
1. One approach is to examine consequences for followers, but most
charismatic leaders have had both positive and negative effects on
followers; disagreements also arise over the outcome’s impact
2. A better approach is to differentiate in terms of the leader’s values
and personality (House and Howell, 1992; Howell, 1988; Musser,
1987), i.e. negative charismatics have a personalised power
orientation (seeks to dominate over followers and keep them
dependent on the leader; centralised power to the leader; wants
self-glorification) and positive charismatics have a socialized
power orientation (emphasis on internalisation of values instead
of personal identification; wants followers to be devoted to
ideology over themselves; authority delegated and participation
encouraged)
The Dark Side of Charisma
 Negative consequences of charisma (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Conger,
1989; Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Hogan, Raskin & Fazzini, 1990; House &
Howell, 1992; Kets de Vries & Miller, 1985)
 Charismatic leaders tend to take more risks that can result in a serious
failure and tend to make more determined enemies who take this
opportunity to oust the leader
 Excessive optimism makes it more difficult for the leader to realise flaws
in their vision
 Identifying too closely with the vision undermines capacity to objectively
evaluate
 Followers will also fail to point out flaw or suggest improvements when
they believe in the leader, making it more likely that a bad decision will
arise (Finkelstein, 2003)
 Negative consequences of overconfidence e.g. Edwin Land, inventor of the
Polaroid (Conger, 1989)
 Impulsive, unconventional behaviour of the leader could be taken as
inappropriate and disruptive
 Leader’s strong conviction to untraditional ideologies alienates people
that are more traditional




Initial supporters can also feel disillusioned if leader fails to give
recognition
Bass (1985) noted that people’s responses to a charismatic is likely to be
polarized (extreme admiration and extreme hatred)
However, not even a negative charismatic leader is doomed to failure:
many narcissistic charismatics who established political empires, found
prosperous companies etc.
Continued success possible for a leader who has expertise to make good
decisions, political skill to maintain power and good luck
Effects of Positive Charismatics
 Followers with positive charismatics more likely to experience
psychological growth and development of their abilities
 Organisation can adapt to an environment that is dynamic, hostile and
competitive
 Positive charismatic leader usually creates an “achievement-oriented”
culture (Harrison, 1987), “high-performing system” (Vaill, 1978), or
“hands-on, value-driven” organisation (Peters & Waterman, 1982)
 Entire organisation encouraged to make important decisions about how
to implement strategies and communication is open
 Harrison (1987) contents that proponents overlook some potential costs:
 People lose their sense of balance and perspective
 Exploits their environment and its members in the service of the
organisation’s purpose
 An achievement culture may result in elitism, isolation and lack of
necessary cooperation with other subunits
 Subordinating member needs to the mission can be justified in severe
crisis but under less demanding conditions a better balance between task
concerns and people concerns is appropriate (Harrison, 1987)
Practical Implications for Organisations
 Charismatic leadership is risky; impossible to predict the result when
people give too much power to an individual leader
 Charismatic leadership implies radical change in the strategy and culture
of an organisation, which may not be necessary or appropriate for
organisations that are currently successful (people would see no reason
for change)
 Most of the descriptive research (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Collins, 2001;
Kouzes & Posner, 1987; Peters & Austin, 1985, Tichy & Devanna, 1986)
suggests that a charismatic leader is not necessary to achieve major
changes in an organisation; chief executives of successful organisations
used transformational behaviours but they aren’t usually thought of as
charismatic
Transformational Leadership



Distinction between transformational and transactional leadership
Followers feel trust, admiration, loyalty and respect toward the leader
and are motivated to do more than they are originally expected to do
Bass (1985; 1996): leader transforms and motivates followers by


1. Making them more aware of the importance of task outcomes
2. Inducing them to transcend their own self-interest for the sake of
the organisation or team
3. Activate higher-order needs
Bass believes that transactional and transformational leadership are
distinct but not mutually exclusive
Effective leaders use a combination of both kinds
Leader Behaviours
 Three types of transformational behaviour (Bass, 1985):
1. Idealized influence: behaviour that arouses strong follower
emotions and identification with the leader
2. Intellectual stimulation: behaviour that increase follower
awareness of problems and influences followers to look at
problems in a new way
3. Individualized consideration: providing support, encouragement,
and coaching to followers
 Revised theory added another kind of behaviour:
4. Inspirational motivation: communicating an appealing vision,
using symbols to focus effort and modelling appropriate
behaviours
 Two types of transactional behaviour:
 Contingent reward: clarification of work required to obtain
rewards and use of incentives and contingent rewards to motivate
 Passive management by exception: contingent punishments and
other corrective action to behaviour that deviates from acceptable
performance standards
Newer revisions:


Active management: looking for mistakes and enforcing rules to
avoid them
Laissez-faire leadership as a meta-category: this type of leader
shows passive indifference; also known as the absence of effective
leadership than as an example of transactional leadership
Influence Processes
 Underlying influence processes for transactional and transformational
not clearly defined, but can be inferred from description of the behaviours
and effects on follower motivation
 Primary influence processes for transactional leadership probably
instrumental compliance
 Transformational leadership probably involves internalization because
inspirational motivation includes efforts to link the task to follower values
and ideals
 Transformational leadership also appears to involve personal
identification because idealized influence results in follower attributions
of charisma to leaders

o Charisma necessary for transformational leadership but not
sufficient by itself to account for the transformational process
(Bass, 1985)
Transformational behaviours such as inspirational motivation and
individual consideration may increase the self-efficacy of individuals
Facilitating Conditions
 Transformational leadership is considered effective in any situation or
culture (Bass, 1996; 1997)
 Evidence supports the conclusion that in most, if not all situations, some
aspects of transformational leadership are relevant
 However, universal relevance does not mean that transformational
leadership is equally effective in all situations or equally likely to occur
 Transformational leadership likely to be more important in a dynamic,
unstable environment that increases the need for change
 Such leadership is more likely when leaders are encouraged and
empowered to be flexible and innovative
 Growing evidence that follower traits and values may determine how they
respond to transformational or charismatic behaviours by a leader
Research Methods for Assessing the Theories (could be irrelevant, but has
examples of studies)
Survey Research
 Lowe, Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam (1996): results of their metaanalysis of results from 39 of the studies using MLQ (Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire) found that transformational leadership was
significantly related to measures of leadership effectiveness
 Transformational leadership behaviours correlated more strongly and
consistently with leadership effectiveness than transactional behaviours
Laboratory Experiments
 Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996) conducted a laboratory experiment to
investigate separate effects of 3 leadership behaviours:
1. Visioning
2. Using a highly expressive style of communication
3. Providing advice to followers in how to do the work better
 Followers in the vision condition perceived the task to be more
interesting, challenging and important, and they set higher performance
goals, had higher trust in the leader, and perceived the leader to be higher
in charisma, inspiration and intellectual stimulation
 Visioning had a positive effect on quality of follower performance but did
not affect quantity of follower performance
 Clarifying appropriate work procedures had a positive effect on follower
role clarity, job satisfaction, perceived leader intellectual stimulation and
both the quality and quantity of follower performance
 Study provided some evidence for the effect of visioning, but stronger
effects were found for clarifying work procedures
Field Experiments
 Only a few field experiments conducted on transformational and
charismatic leadership and in each case leader behaviour was
manipulated with a training intervention (Barling, Weber & Kelloway,
1996; Dvir, Eden, Avolio & Shamir, 2002)
Descriptive and Comparative Studies
 Descriptive studies look at common attributes among leaders
(transformational and charismatic)
 Others compare leaders pre-characterised as charismatic or noncharismatic or charismatic leaders in different situations
 Information generally collected from biographies, case studies and
articles about the leader and also speeches and writings by the leader
 Content analysis conducted to identify characteristic behaviours, traits
and influence processes (e.g. Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Conger, 1989; Fiol,
Harris and House, 1999; Howell & Higgins, 1990 etc.)
 Examples:
o House, Spangler and Woycke (1991) conducted a comparative
study on charismatic leadership in US presidents
o Bennis and Nanus (1985) conducted a 5-year descriptive study of
dynamic, innovative leaders through interviews and observation
 Leaders demonstrated commitment to the vision by their decisions and
behaviour and follower commitment to the vision depended on the trust
in the leader which was more likely when the leader’s statements and
actions were consistent
 Leaders channelled the collective energies of organisational members in
pursuit of the common vision
Intensive Case Studies
 Longitudinal case studies follower a leader’s career over a period of time
and examine their interaction with followers, the leadership context and
outcomes of the leader’s influence attempts
 Example: Roberts (1985) study of the same leader in two successive
positions
o Began when the leader was the superintendent of a public school
district; she was effective in this situation
 Roberts characterised the successful outcome as a process of creating and
managing energy instead of shaping culture or managing meaning
 Leader was not originally considered charismatic, but was only attributed
so because of the way she had resolved a budget crisis
o In situations of crisis, charismatic leaders appear to be the hero in
the situation
 In the second situation, the leader was a commissioner
o Not considered charismatic in this situation; initiatives had
positive benefits but did not generate any widespread support for
major change
 Reasons could include the lack of a major crisis, second position was
much more political and constrained her actions making change difficult,
and close relationships were not developed in the second position
Transformational vs. Charismatic Leadership










Debate over the extent to which transformational leadership and
charismatic leadership are similar and compatible (whether it is possible
to be both transformational and charismatic at the same time)
One of the differences in the two theories is the emphasis on attributed
charisma and personal identification
Bass (1985) proposed that charisma is a necessary component for
transformational leadership but also noted that a leader can be
charismatic but not transformational
Essence of transformational is to inspire follower commitment to shared
objectives, increasing social identification and developing follower skills
and collective efficacy
o Essential influence processes for transformational leadership may
not be entirely compatible with essential influence process for
charismatic leadership
MOST IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE: Transformational leaders probably do
more things that will empower followers and make them less dependent
on the leader (delegating responsibility etc.) but charismatic leaders do
more to foster the image of extraordinary competence
Other likely differences: how common it is, the facilitating conditions for
it, and typical reactions of people
Bass (1996; 1997): transformational leaders can be found at any level of
an organisation and is usually relevant for all types of situations
Charismatic leaders are rare and emergence appears to be more
dependent on favourable conditions (Bass, 1985; Beyer, 1999; Shamir &
Howell, 1999)
Reactions of people to charismatics are usually more extreme and diverse
than reactions to transformational leaders (Bass, 1985)
o Charismatic leaders cause polarization of followers
Further research should be done on underlying influence processes or go
beyond the superficial and often ambiguous data provided by
questionnaires
Evaluation of the Theories




Available evidence supports that many of the key propositions of major
theories of charismatic and transformational leadership
o Theories provide an explanation for the influence some leaders
have on subordinates
New theories emphasize the importance of emotional reactions by
followers to leaders, whereas earlier theories rational-cognitive aspects of
leader-follower interactions
New theories also give more comprehensive set of variables and integrate
them better in explanations of effective leadership
New theories also have conceptual weaknesses (Beyer, 1999; Bryman,
1993; Yukl, 1999b)
o E.g. ambiguous constructs, insufficient description of explanatory
processes, a narrow focus on dyadic variables and a bias towards
heroic conceptions of leadership
Limitations of charismatic and transformational leadership theories





Most theories focus too narrowly on dyadic processes; not sufficient to
explain how leaders build exceptional teams
Theories do not explain task-oriented functions of leaders that are
essential for the effective performance of the team
Theories fail to explain the leader’s external roles: e.g. monitoring the
environment to identify threats and opportunities, building networks,
serving as spokesperson, negotiation of agreements and helping obtain
resources, political support and new members
Charismatic and transformational theories don’t explain what the
followers are motivated to do and how appropriate it is to the situation
Overemphasis on universal leader attributes that are relevant for all
situations; more situational variables needed that will determine whether
transformational or charismatic leadership will occur and how effective it
will be (Beyer, 1999; Bryman, 1992; Yukl, 1999b)
Applications: Guidelines for Leaders




Articulate a clear and appealing vision
o Helps people understand the purpose, objectives and priorities of
the organisation
o Gives the work meaning, is a source of self-esteem and fosters a
sense of common purpose
o Helps guide actions and decisions of each member (important
when employees are allowed considerable autonomy) (Hackman,
1986; Raelin, 1989)
o Success of vision depends on how clear it is communicated
(Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Holladay & Coombs, 1993; 1994)
o Should be communicated through a variety of ways
o Anecdotes and stories are more effective if they invoke symbols
with deep cultural roots e.g. legendary heroes and sacred figures
Explain how the vision can be attained
o Leader must convince followers that the vision is feasible
o Clear link between vision and credible strategy for attainment
o Link is easier to establish if strategy has a few clear themes related
to shared values of organisation’s members (Nadler, 1988)
o Leader should not pretend to know all the answers about how to
achieve the vision but should inform followers that they have a
vital role in the discovery of what actions are necessary
o Strategy needs to be straightforward and unconventional – if too
simplistic and conventional, strategy will not elicit confidence in
the leader
Act confident and optimistic
o Leader needs to demonstrate self-confidence and conviction for
followers to have faith
o Best to emphasize positive aspects of the vision rather than
obstacles and dangers
Express confidence in followers


o Motivating effect of a vision also depends on subordinates’
confidence in their ability to achieve it
o People perform better when the leader shows confidence in them
and have high expectations (Eden, 1984, 1990; Eden & Shani,
1982; Field, 1989)
o Review specific strengths, assets and resources that subordinates
can draw on to carry out the strategy
Use dramatic, symbolic actions to emphasize key values
o Vision is reinforced by leadership behaviour that is consistent with
it
o Concern for a value or objective is demonstrated by the way a
manager spends time, by resource allocation decisions made when
trade-offs are necessary between objectives, questions asked and
what actions the manager rewards
o Symbolic actions to achieve or defend an important
objective/value are likely to be more influential when the manager
risks personal loss, makes a self-sacrifice or does unconventional
things
o Effect of symbolic actions increases when they become stories and
myths that are retold
o E.g. Peters and Austin (1985): CEO personally destroyed some of
the company’s low-quality products, showing his commitment to
the new policy that they would only sell products of the highest
quality
Lead by example
o Set an example of good behaviour in day-to-day interactions
o “Role modelling”
o Especially important for dangerous, unpleasant, unconventional,
controversial actions
o Managers/leaders need to follow through with their standards:
 Positive: Military leaders who have also gone to battle and
shared dangers and hardships
 Negative: executives that take large bonuses despite financial
difficulties that cut employees’ pay
o Values espoused by leader should be evident in their everyday
behaviour consistently
Summary
Charismatic Leaders:




Attributions of charisma: result of interactive process between 1) leader
2) followers and 3) the situation
Attribution of charisma more likely when vision and strategy are
innovative, leader takes personal risks and strategy appears to be
succeeding
Most important: context that makes the leader’s vision especially relevant
to follower needs
Charismatic leaders don’t always have beneficial effects on the
organisation


o Can be tyrants or egomanias; can be insensitive, manipulative,
domineering, impulsive and defensive
o Emphasis on devotion to themselves instead of goals and used to
manipulate followers
Positive charismatics seek to instil devotion to ideological goals and more
likely to have positive effects on the organisation
Achievement culture fostered by positive charismatics could also bring
undesirable outcomes
Transformational Leaders:






Make followers more aware of the importance and value of the work
Induce followers to transcend self-interest for the sake of the organisation
Leaders help develop followers and give them responsibility and support
Followers feel trust and respect toward the leader and more motivated
Most research relatively supportive
However, few studies have examined the underlying influence that
account for positive relationship between leader behaviour and follower
behaviour
Transformational vs. Charismatic


Both theories have emphasized tat emotional processes are important as
rational processes; symbolic actions are important
Necessary to examine organisation’s processes and aspects of strategic
management to understand financial performance and survival