A Motivational Theory of Charismatic Leadership

Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 2006, Vol. 13, No. 1

A Motivational Theory of Charismatic Leadership: Envisioning, Empathy, and

Empowerment

Jaepil Choi Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

The motivational effects of charismatic leadership are examined in greater detail. Charismatic leadership is assumed to have three core components: envisioning, empathy, and empowerment. A charismatic leader’s envisioning behavior influences followers’ need for achievement, and the leader’s empathic behavior stimulates followers’ need for affiliation. Followers’ need for power is enhanced by a charismatic leader’s empowerment practices. It is further suggested that the behaviors of a charismatic leader and the enhanced followers’ needs promote clearer role perceptions, improved task performance, greater job satisfaction, stronger collective identity and group cohesiveness, more organizational citizenship behaviors, and stronger self-leadership among the followers. The contextual factors which may influence the motivational effects of charismatic leadership are also discussed.

Many scholars have argued that a

charismatic leader inspires followers and generates some excitement among them (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; Conger & Kanungo, 1998; House, 1977) so that they perform beyond expectations. Despite the consensus on the effects of charismatic leadership, however, very few motivational theories on charismatic leadership have been proposed to explain explicitly how it affects followers’ needs. This lack of research on the motivational effects of charismatic leadership could result from one or both of the following reasons.

First, previous research has noted the elusive nature and the mystical connotations of charismatic leadership (Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Yukl, 1999). Thus, the core features of

charismatic leadership have been explained in many different ways by different scholars (Bass, 1985; Burke, 1986). For instance, Conger and Kanungo (1998) discussed charismatic leadership in light of a constellation of a leader’s observable behaviors toward followers. In contrast, Meindl (1990) explained charismatic leadership in view of an inter-follower social contagion process, according to which followers’ attributions of charisma are more strongly influenced by the interactions with other followers than by their direct experiences with the leader. This divergence in the conceptualization of charismatic leadership has hindered researchers in examining how a charismatic leader affects his/her followers’ needs.

Second, many studies on charismatic leadership have taken a less interactional approach in the sense that they have focused primarily on the charismatic leader’s personality traits (Behling & McFillen, 1996; Dubinsky, Yammarino, & Jolson, 1995; Nadler & Tushman, 1990) or profiles of leader motives (De Hoogh et al., 2005; House, 1977; House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1991). Because these studies investigated a charismatic leader in an isolated manner from followers, very little is known on how a charismatic leader’s behaviors displayed in interactions with followers affect the profiles of their needs.

This study aims to develop a theoretical model of charismatic leadership which highlights its motivational effects on followers. More specifically, we propose that most charismatic leaders display several common behavioral characteristics in the interactions with their followers. Each of these behavioral characteristics arouses certain internal needs of

Motivational Theory of Charismatic Leadership Volume 13, Number 1, 2006 25

the followers. The followers whose needs are stimulated in a non-exploitative way will then reveal various degrees of positive attitudes and behaviors toward their leaders, co-workers, and organizations. As such, a motivational theory of charismatic leadership presented here suggests that a charismatic leader generally generates positive individual and organizational outcomes by displaying behaviors that stimulate followers’ needs.

In order to achieve the abovementioned objective, this study first sets out to clarify the core features of charismatic leadership by identifying its three core components: envisioning, empathy, and empowerment. Based on an interactive approach that emphasizes the interaction between a leader and followers, we assert that the core components of charismatic leadership affect the need profiles of the followers. In particular, the arguments are developed indicating that envisioning, empathy, and empowerment of charismatic leaders stimulate the need for achievement, the need for affiliation, and the need for power of followers, respectively. Each of these three components of charismatic leadership and each of the followers’ three needs are linked through some motivational mechanisms. Taken together, the motivational effects of charismatic leadership were explained by the three behavioral components of charismatic leadership and the followers’ changed three needs as responses to charismatic behaviors.

We are further interested in individual and organizational outcomes of the motivational effects of charismatic leadership. In particular, we discuss the consequences of enhancing followers’ needs through charismatic leadership, such as role perceptions, job satisfaction, collective identity, group cohesiveness, task performance, organizational citizenship behavior, and self-leadership.

It is also believed that the motivational effects of charismatic leadership vary as functions of various contextual factors (Howell, 1997; Pawar & Eastman, 1997; Shamir & Howell, 1999). Therefore, we also incorporate

some critical contextual factors that may have significant implications on the effectiveness of charismatic leadership and on the interaction between a charismatic leader and followers. In particular, this study considers organizational factors, task factors, and follower factors as potentially important contextual factors that moderate the motivational effects of charismatic leadership. Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework for the motivational effects of charismatic leadership.

In the remainder of the paper, we first discuss charismatic leadership and its three core components. We then specify the needs of followers that may be influenced by each of the three components of charismatic leadership. This section also presents several propositions regarding the process of stimulating followers’ needs. We then examine the consequences of the motivational effects of charismatic leadership. The next section discusses some contextual factors that may facilitate or impair the motivational effects of charismatic leadership. Finally, directions for the future study of the motivational effects of charismatic leadership are proposed.

The Three Core Components of

Charismatic Leadership

Increasing attention has been directed during the past several decades toward charismatic leadership. The term “charisma,” whose initial meaning is ‘a gift’ in Greek, has been frequently used in politics and religion to adduce legitimacy to power. Weber (1968) defined it as an individual’s personality quality (or at least, specifically exceptional powers or qualities) by virtue of which he/she is set apart from ordinary people and which thus legitimizes his/her exercise of influence. House (1977) developed a theory of charismatic leadership which is among the first attempts to build a comprehensive theoretical basis for studying the topic.

26 Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies Choi

FIGURE 1 The Motivational Effects of Charismatic Leadership

In this study, we consider charismatic leadership as being based on a leader’s behavior shown in his/her interactions with followers. Charismatic leadership can manifest itself in two different forms: personalized or socialized charismatic leadership (House & Howell, 1992; Howell, 1988; Howell & Shamir, 2005). The former is exploitative, non-egalitarian, and self-aggrandizing. Therefore, it has disastrous consequences for followers and the organization, as exemplified by the well-documented careers of such personalized leaders as Adolf Hitler and Jim Jones of Jonestown. This personalized leadership style represents the dark side of charismatic leadership (Conger, 1989), and it will not be considered in the following discussion.

This study instead focuses on socialized charismatic leadership, which is defined as being non-exploitative and as motivating followers to maximize the gains of the organization without regard for the leader’s personal needs (Howell, 1988). It is also characterized by the leaders’ efforts to assist followers by formulating higher-order goals which appeal to the followers’ fundamental and enduring needs. It

also instills in the followers a sense of power to pursue such goals. As such, instead of creating blind dependence among the followers, as is observed in the case of personalized charismatic leadership, socialized charismatic leadership is more of a developmental leadership style (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002).

To explain the motivational effects of socialized charismatic leaders on their followers, it is first necessary to explain which of their behaviors generate those effects. We propose that socialized charismatic leadership is a constellation of three key behavioral components which are evident in the interactions with followers: envisioning, empathy, and empowerment.

These three components are in line with the elements of charismatic leadership as suggested by many previous studies (e.g., Bass, 1985; Burke, 1986; Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Tichy & DeVanna, 1986). Conger (1989) is among those who suggested that envisioning, communication of vision, trust, and empowerment are the key components of charismatic leadership. Similarly, Nadler and Tushman (1990) presented a three-component


formulation of charismatic leadership encompassing envisioning, energizing, and enabling. Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996) also supposed three components of charismatic leadership focusing on the formulation and communication of vision: vision, vision implementation, and communication style.

Envisioning

Envisioning involves creating an overall picture of a desired future state with which people can identify and which can generate excitement. The creation and communication of a vision is one of the most prominent characteristics of charismatic leadership (Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Rafferty & Griffin, 2004; Strange & Mumford, 2002, 2005). Charismatic leaders formulate a vision that clarifies idealized goals for an organization, and articulates values attractive to their followers (Conger & Kanungo, 1998). Because the vision is greatly discrepant from the status quo, it provides an organization with a reason for change. The vision makes the charismatic leader more admirable and more worthy of being identified in the eyes of the followers.

In addition to formulating a vision, they are adept at communicating the vision and infusing day-to-day work with a larger sense of purpose and greater intrinsic appeal (Conger, 1989). Most charismatic leaders, therefore, are known as persuasive speakers. They often rely on various rhetorical techniques such as metaphors, analogy, and stories to inculcate key ideas into the followers’ minds, so that their message would have a profound impact on followers (Conger, 1989). A typical example is the famous speech of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., which was delivered at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC in 1963. Leaders also communicate the vision through aligning their actions with values articulated in the vision (Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996). By showing unswerving dedication to the vision, making personal sacrifices, and engaging in unconventional behavior, they inspire their followers to transcend their self-interests for the sake of a collective goal. In the process of communicating their vision, they also express a strong confidence in their followers’ ability to achieve such vision.

The literature has consistently emphasized the role of vision in charismatic leadership. House (1977), for example, pointed out that the most significant role of a charismatic leader is to articulate ideological goals for followers. In a similar vein, Conger and Kanungo (1998) indicated that a charismatic leader specifies a vision that is greatly discrepant from the status quo. Simonton (1988) also suggested that the articulation of a vision and the creation of new goals for followers are central elements for the success of charismatic political leaders.

Proposition 1a: Charismatic leaders formulate a vision of a desirable future state and communicate it to their followers through verbal communication and exemplary behavior.

Empathy

Empathy indicates the ability to understand another person’s motives, values, and emotions (Salovey & Mayer, 1990), and it involves entering the other person’s perspectives. Empathy may underlie relationship-oriented leadership behaviors such as consideration, which is characterized by mutual trust, respect for and support for another person’s ideas, and appreciation of their feelings (Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004). A high degree of consideration thus implies a strong sensitivity to followers’ needs. In recent years, empathy has been emphasized as one aspect of emotional intelligence (Bass, 1998; Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999; Goleman, 2000), which is a crucial characteristic of an effective leader (Wong & Law, 2002).

Charismatic leaders have a strong tendency to display sensitivity to their followers’ needs and emotions (Bass & Avolio, 1990; Conger & Kanungo, 1998). They understand what followers want and focus their attention on issues that are important to followers (Pillai, Williams, Lowe, & Jung, 2003). They also share followers’ feelings in a way that creates an emotional bond between them (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). By doing so, they generate a feeling of oneness with followers. Furthermore, in order to help followers realize their objectives, charismatic leaders take the followers’ interests into consideration when making decisions.

Many researchers have found empathy to be a crucial aspect of charismatic leadership. Bass (1985) identified individualized consideration as an important behavioral


characteristic of charismatic leaders. In particular, he demonstrated that they pay individualized attention to followers, respond to their needs, and encourage their personal development. Avolio and Bass (1995) suggested that charismatic leaders show frequent individualized consideration by displaying support for the efforts of followers. Podsakoff and his colleagues (1990) also stated that charismatic leaders respect followers and are concerned about their feelings and needs.

Proposition 1b: Charismatic leaders engage in empathic behavior by being sensitive to their followers’ needs and emotions, sharing their emotions, and helping them realize their objectives.

Empowerment

Empowerment is defined as a process which leads to enhanced perceptions of self-efficacy (i.e., belief in one’s capability to perform work activities with skill; Gist, 1987) among followers by identifying conditions that foster a sense of powerlessness and removing them through both formal organizational practices and informal techniques (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995, 1996). It usually refers to not only delegating or sharing power with followers, but also to implementing various managerial interventions that enable followers to feel a sense of choice in initiating and regulating actions, and in influencing strategy, administration, or operating outcomes at work. Thus, it emphasizes the development of a traditionally less powerful group of people in an organization by improving their confidence. As a result of empowerment, the followers are able to take an active, rather than a passive orientation to their work roles (Spreitzer, 1996).

Empowerment is a distinguishable behavioral characteristic of a charismatic leader from an ordinary manager (Bass, 1985; Burke, 1986; Conger & Kanungo, 1998). By facilitating empowerment, a charismatic leader helps followers feel powerful and capable (Tichy & DeVanna, 1986). As followers possess the enhanced feelings of self-efficacy resulting from the empowerment of a charismatic leader, they start to become independent in the initiation and continuation of work behavior and processes.

Charismatic leaders rely on several techniques to empower followers (Conger,

1989). First, they structure goals and tasks so that followers can easily experience initial success before tackling successive gradual increments in task complexity (Behling & McFillen, 1996; Burke, 1986). The experience of initial success enhances followers’ self-efficacy in later task performance (Bandura, 1986). As a result, followers are inspired to do more than they thought they could do. Second, verbal persuasion and personal recognition by a charismatic leader help followers gain confidence in their abilities, mobilize a greater sustained effort, and confirm their self-worth (Conger, 1989; Spreitzer, 1995, 1996). Third, by demonstrating his/her own ability in performing some of the same tasks that followers are supposed to do, a charismatic leader can serve as a role model. In experiencing vicarious success through their charismatic leader, followers come to have confidence in their own efficacy in task performance (Bandura, 1986).

Proposition 1c: Charismatic leaders empower their followers by enhancing their perceptions of self-efficacy and their confidence in their ability to overcome obstacles, by using verbal persuasion and verbal recognition, and by functioning as a role model.

The three-component model of charismatic

leadership presented here helps differentiate charismatic leadership from other relevant concepts. Visionary leadership (Sashkin, 1988; Westley & Mintzberg, 1988) and expert and referent power (Kudisch et al., 1995) are often discussed as similar to charismatic leadership. The relationships between charismatic leadership and these concepts are depicted in Figure 2. The three overlapping circles represent the core components of charismatic leadership. Concepts linked by the double-headed arrows are assumed to co-vary with each other. Visionary leadership appears to highlight only the envisioning element of charismatic leadership; however, empathy and empowerment are relatively less emphasized. Similarly, expert power seems to be closely associated with only the visionary nature of charismatic leadership, but it is not linked to empathic behavior or empowerment (Khatri, Ng, & Lee, 1999). In addition, charismatic leadership can be considered as a source of referent power (Burke, 1986; Yukl, 2002),


which is denoted as an arrow in Figure 2. Taken together, Figure 2 states that visionary leadership and expert power are correlated with only the visionary nature of charismatic

leadership, and that the three components of charismatic leadership contribute to referent power.

FIGURE 2 Charismatic Leadership, Visionary Leadership, Expert Power, and Referent Power

The conceptual framework of the study depicted in Figure 1 states that the motivational effects of charismatic leadership occur when its three behavioral characteristics stimulate followers’ needs. The detailed processes by which followers’ needs are stimulated by a charismatic leader’s behaviors are labeled as motivational mechanisms. In fact, the motivational influences of charismatic leadership on followers can be explained largely by those mechanisms. For instance, followers’ positive self-perceptions (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993), trust in leaders (Podsakoff et al., 1990), and modeling of leaders (Waldman & Yammarino, 1999) are examples of mechanisms which illustrate why charismatic leadership has a strong motivational effect. The following section provides more detailed arguments on how charismatic leadership influences followers’ needs through various motivational mechanisms.

Charismatic Leadership and the Needs of Followers

Motivation researchers have long been

intrigued by the internal factors which motivate people (Steers, Porter, & Bigley, 1996). These factors include physiological needs, social needs, and some self-related needs. Many studies on charismatic leadership have focused on charismatic leaders’ own profiles along those needs—the leader motive profile. For instance, House (1977) proposed that one motive that differentiates charismatic leaders from others is an exceptionally high need for power. He also argued that a need for achievement could be viewed as a liability rather than an asset for a charismatic leader. House and his colleagues (1991) demonstrated that behavioral charisma was positively related to the need for power and was negatively related to the need for achievement and affiliation. More recently, De Hoogh and his colleagues (2005) found a


positive relationship between charismatic leadership and the power motive. However, charismatic leadership had a negative relationship with the affiliation motive. They also found no relationship between the achievement motive and charisma.

On the other hand, little research has investigated whether charismatic leadership affects followers’ needs and if so, in what way. The needs of followers influenced by charismatic leadership which were addressed in this study are the need for achievement, the need for affiliation, and the need for power. These needs of followers were originally proposed by the learned needs theory (McClelland, 1985). This theory departs greatly from other content theories of motivation (e.g., Maslow’s needs hierarchy theory, Alderfer’s ERG theory, Herzberg’s motivator-hygiene model, etc.), in that it views needs as socially acquired attributes of the individual rather than as innate psychological characteristics (Steers et al., 1996). While McClelland (1985) argued that individuals acquire these needs from the culture of their society by learning from the incidents that they experience, particularly in childhood, we posit that the followers’ three needs are learned and stimulated in the process of interacting with charismatic leaders.

Before we go on to discuss how charismatic leaders affect their followers’ needs, one caveat is in order. As noted in Figure 1, while the three components of charismatic leadership stimulate followers’ needs, we do not suppose that all followers will be affected in the same degree. For instance, followers’ self-perceptions (Howell & Shamir, 2005), cultural values (Jung & Avolio, 1999), and desire for change (Trice & Beyer, 1991) affect their susceptibility to charismatic leadership. This suggests that we need to take a more contingency-based approach to charismatic leadership. The following section first describes how charismatic leadership affects the followers’ needs, and individual and organizational outcomes. Then a separate section is devoted to contextual factors to complete the contingency-based approach to charismatic leadership.

Followers’ Need for Achievement

The need for achievement refers to the concern for long-term involvement, competition

against some standard of excellence, and unique accomplishment (McClelland, 1985). A high need for achievement is characterized by (1) a high interest in tasks which require a considerable level of skill and problem-solving ability, (2) a tendency to set moderately difficult goals, (3) a preference for concrete and quantitative feedback, and (4) a pursuit of satisfaction which is derived from the task itself and task performance.

Charismatic leaders stimulate followers’ need for achievement through envisioning behaviors. They formulate an idealized vision that is greatly discrepant from the status quo, and the vision clarifies expectations of what should be achieved in the future (Conger & Kanungo, 1998). To the extent that the vision is strongly internalized by the followers, to the extent that it helps followers set specific and challenging goals, and to the extent that it clarifies performance expectations, the vision should affect the followers’ need for achievement.

More specifically, envisioning behavior stimulates followers’ need for achievement in several ways. First, when the vision is greatly discrepant from the status quo, followers cannot rely solely on the skills and abilities that they would normally use for problem solving (Conger & Kanungo, 1998). They have to make best use of all their skills, abilities, and imagination, and then develop creative strategies to achieve the goals. If necessary, they should also address the problems from a new perspective which is consistent with the leader’s vision (Bass, 1998). All of these requirements stimulate the followers’ need for achievement.

Second, when charismatic leaders create a vision, they aim to develop followers (Conger & Kanungo, 1998). To the extent that a vision is framed to be meaningful to followers, its achievement becomes important for the positive self-perceptions of the followers, which is attained through their feelings of self-esteem, self-worth, and self-efficacy (Shamir et al., 1993). The importance of achieving the vision for building the positive self-perceptions then enhances the followers’ need for achievement.

Third, followers who internalize the vision are well aware of what they should do to contribute to the achievement of the vision (Conger & Kanungo, 1998). Therefore, they are


likely to set specific individual goals and group goals. As the goal-setting theory (Locke & Latham, 1990) suggests, followers with specific goals perceive a high need for achievement.

Lastly, in the process of communicating a vision, charismatic leaders express a high expectation of performance. On the basis of strong confidence in followers’ capabilities, they inspire followers to achieve a higher performance (Bass, 1985). Such expectations lead the followers to set moderately difficult goals for their task performance. In a situation where they are striving to achieve these moderately difficult goals, the followers are likely to feel a high need for achievement (Locke & Latham, 1990).

Proposition 2a: A charismatic leader’s envisioning behavior stimulates followers’ need for achievement by challenging their capabilities, framing a vision which is conducive to shaping their positive self-perceptions, and prompting them to set specific and challenging goals.

Followers’ Need for Affiliation

The need for affiliation indicates a concern for establishing, maintaining, and restoring close personal, emotional relationships with others (Heynes, Veroff, & Atkinson, 1958). It is the need for human companionship and reassurance. A high need for affiliation is characterized by (1) a strong desire to like and be liked by others, (2) a strong desire for approval and reassurance from others, and (3) a tendency to be attracted to group tasks.

Charismatic leaders’ empathic behavior stimulates followers’ need for affiliation in several ways. First, it is generally known that an individual will have trust in others, to the extent that the others display strong concern for his/her interests (Butler, 1991; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995; Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998). This suggests that the empathic behavior of a charismatic leader generates followers’ trust (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Pillai & Williams, 1998; Podsakoff et al., 1990), which, in turn, leads the followers to desire to prolong the relationship with their leader. Therefore, the more empathetic to followers a leader is, the more trust the leader gains from followers, and consequently, the greater also is the need for affiliation with their leader that is developed among the followers.

Second, empathic behavior enables followers to believe that a charismatic leader cares about their interests. Their appreciation for the leader’s caring is likely to contribute to the development of an affective bond with the leader (George, 2000; Lewis, 2000). Indeed, it is well documented that charismatic leadership is characterized by a strong emotional attachment felt by both the leader and followers (Kellett, Humphrey, & Sleeth, 2002). An emotional connection leads followers to desire to maintain interpersonal relationships with their leader, which consequently increases their need for affiliation with the leader.

Third, empathic behavior strengthens followers’ identification with their leader (Bass, 1998; Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, & Popper, 1998). In general, identification is predicated on the desire to emulate others’ qualities and thus fully accept their influence (Kelman, 1958). As followers notice a charismatic leader’s empathic behavior and evaluate it as positive, they are attracted to the leader so that they aspire to imitate the leader. Then, they accept the leader’s influence and desire to maintain a long-term relationship with the leader (Kelman, 1958).

The above discuss suggests that empathic behavior on the part of charismatic leaders enhances followers’ need for affiliation with them. Furthermore, empathic behavior also enables followers to perceive emotional connections among themselves (House & Shamir, 1993; Meindl, 1990). In particular, by emphasizing collective efforts among followers who share common emotions and a common fate, charismatic leaders prompt followers to subordinate their personal interests to those of the larger group. A cooperative work environment fostered by charismatic leaders stimulates followers’ need for affiliation with their co-workers (Conger & Kanungo, 1998).

Proposition 2b: A charismatic leader’s empathic behavior stimulates followers’ need for affiliation by generating their trust in and identification with the leader, stimulating emotional attachment with the leader, and emphasizing cooperative relationships among the followers.

Followers’ Need for Power

The need for power refers to the concern of influencing others and controlling one’s


environment (McClelland, 1985). A high need for power is characterized by (1) a tendency to attempt to influence and control others, (2) a tendency to be verbally fluent, often talkative, sometimes argumentative, and (3) actions that have an emotional impact on others.

Charismatic leaders’ empowerment practices stimulate followers’ need for power in several ways. First, empowerment enhances the sense of self-efficacy of the followers. As mentioned above, charismatic leaders are adept at reinforcing followers’ self-efficacy by providing information to them about their task efficacy through both formal speeches and personal recognition (Gardner & Avolio, 1998). Their consistent reminder of individual and collective successes also increases the sense of self-efficacy of their followers. These empowerment practices enable the followers to feel more capable, as they begin to desire to exercise more influence over their environment.

Second, followers’ need for power is enhanced through observational learning. A leader generally provides a point of reference and a focus for followers’ emulation and vicarious learning (Bandura, 1986; Manz & Sims, 1986). In particular, a strong identification with a charismatic leader makes him/her a very influential role model (Shamir et al., 1993). There is ample evidence showing that charismatic leaders have a high need for power (De Hoogh et al., 2005; House, 1977; House et al., 1991). Observing and interacting with the leader make followers more likely to emulate and imitate the leader’s high need for power. The imitation of charismatic leadership by followers has been described as the falling dominoes effect of charismatic leadership (Bass, Waldman, Avolio, & Bebb, 1987). Waldman and Yammarino (1999: 274) also stated that, “if managers at one echelon tend to demonstrate charismatic leadership, we are likely to see similar leadership qualities at lower echelons.” Some empirical studies have found that individuals who are exposed to charismatic leadership are more likely to desire to exercise power over others (Zacharatos, Barling, & Kelloway, 2000).

Proposition 2c: A charismatic leader’s empowerment behavior stimulates followers’ need for power by enhancing the followers’

sense of self-efficacy and promoting observational learning of the leader’s qualities.

Outcomes of the Motivational Effects

of Charismatic Leadership

The discussion has outlined so far how the three core components of charismatic leadership are associated with followers’ three needs. However, a discussion of the motivational effects of charismatic leadership cannot be complete without further illustrating how those motivational effects influence the followers’ attitudes and behaviors. Before undertaking this discussion, it is important to note first that this section does not intend to present a comprehensive review of the consequences of charismatic leadership. A number of these consequences have already been discussed by other researchers (e.g., Bass, 1998; Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Shamir et al., 1993; Yukl, 2002). Our main objective is to focus only on the individual and organizational outcomes which are closely associated with the three needs among the followers as enhanced by charismatic leadership.

Second, relationships between a particular need and consequences are indicated by an arrow in Figure 1, but this does not indicate that the two other needs are unimportant to those consequences. For instance, task performance may also be affected by either the followers’ need for affiliation or by their need for power. However, it is more reasonable to argue that task performance will be greatly affected by the need for achievement. As such, although a particular perception and behavior of followers may be influenced by all three needs, a certain need may have a greater impact than the other two needs. To build a more parsimonious theoretical framework for understanding the motivational effects of charismatic leadership, the following section discusses individual and organizational outcomes which are influenced by the most influential needs of followers.

Role Perceptions, Task Performance, and Job Satisfaction

Followers’ role perceptions, task performance, and job satisfaction are significantly affected by their need for achievement as enhanced by their charismatic


leader’s envisioning behavior. First, followers with a high need for achievement are motivated to compete against some standard of excellence. On the basis of a vision, they are likely to set specific and challenging goals to help mobilize their efforts (House, 1977). Therefore, followers have a better sense of what they must do in order to achieve the vision and their individual goals. It then follows that the followers will have clear role perceptions. They also develop a new role identity based on their membership in a group with a clearly defined vision. In fact, Howell and Frost (1989) found in a laboratory experiment that followers working with charismatic leaders perceived less role conflict than those working with leaders of other styles.

Second, followers led by charismatic leaders often show high task performance. According to our model of the motivational effects of charismatic leadership, the enhanced task performance can be attributed to followers’ high need for achievement which has been stimulated by the envisioning behavior of a charismatic leader. Because the vision greatly from the status quo, followers mobilize all their abilities to realize the vision with which they feel identified (Bass, 1985). In addition, a charismatic leader’s high performance expectations of followers appeal to their need for achievement. Thus, followers whose need for achievement has been stimulated by a charismatic leader display high intrinsic motivation, invest greater effort in tasks, and consequently perform well.

Many studies have consistently reported that charismatic leadership is positively associated with followers’ performance. Howell and Frost (1989) found that charismatic leaders’ followers showed high task performance regardless of the group’s productivity norm. Koh and his colleagues (1995) showed that charismatic leadership among Singaporean school principals predicted their students’ academic performance. Barling and her colleagues (1996) demonstrated that employees in branches of a bank where the branch manager had completed a charismatic leadership training program displayed high performance. Yammarino and his colleagues (1997) also reported that charismatic leadership was positively related with salespeople’s performance. Similarly, Waldman and his

colleagues (2001) found that CEO charismatic leadership was significantly associated with firm performance under conditions of environmental uncertainty.

Leadership style is usually considered to be a very influential factor in determining job satisfaction among employees. In particular, followers led by a charismatic leader are predicted to express high job satisfaction, including satisfaction with the leadership. Several researchers have examined the effect of charismatic leadership on followers’ general job satisfaction. For example, according to Howell and Frost (1989), individuals led by charismatic leaders reported higher job satisfaction than did the followers of leaders who were not charismatic. Podsakoff and his colleagues (1990) also showed that charismatic behavior enhanced job satisfaction significantly, but contingent reward behavior was not associated with followers’ satisfaction. There is also ample evidence to show that charismatic leadership enhances satisfaction with the leaders. For instance, among charisma, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation, only charisma was found to have a significant impact on followers’ satisfaction with the leadership (Seltzer & Bass, 1990). Moreover, charisma is known to enhance followers’ satisfaction with the leadership above and beyond the effects of contingent reward behavior and initiating structure (Waldman, Bass, & Yammarino, 1990).

Proposition 3a: Followers with a high need for achievement which is enhanced by the envisioning behavior of a charismatic leader perceive their roles clearly and show high task performance and satisfaction.

Collective Identity, Group Cohesiveness, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Followers’ collective identity, group

cohesiveness, and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) directed toward their leader and co-workers are significantly affected by their high need for affiliation as enhanced by a charismatic leader’s empathic behavior. First, the followers’ identification with and strong emotional bond with their charismatic leader help clearly define the boundary of the group. Followers view themselves as part of a larger


group, and others who accept the influence of the same leader are perceived as members of the same group. A follower’s high need for affiliation with his/her charismatic leader facilitates a feeling of unity and distinctiveness, which contributes to a sense of collective identity among the followers (Gardner & Avolio, 1998; Howell & Shamir, 2005; Shamir et al., 1998).

In addition, some behaviors of charismatic leaders contribute to collective identity. First, because a charismatic leader clarifies the acceptable behavioral patterns necessary to facilitate collective activities (Howell, 1988, 1997), the followers often display behaviors distinct from those of non-followers. Second, a charismatic leader’s strong emphasis on team spirit promotes oneness among followers (House & Shamir, 1993; Kellett et al., 2002; Salovey & Mayer, 1990), which also enhances the distinctiveness of the group.

Second, charismatic leadership fosters high cohesiveness by stimulating the need for affiliation among followers (Waldman & Yammarino, 1999). Group cohesiveness indicates the degree of interpersonal attraction among group members, loyalty toward the group, and intention to remain in the group (Lott & Lott, 1965). Followers’ need for affiliation with a charismatic leader increases commitment to and identification with the group (Pillai et al., 2003; Shamir et al., 1998). To the extent that group membership is an important part of the identity of an individual, the individual develops favorable perceptions of that group, and at the same time, many negative attributes are assigned to other groups (Hogg & Abrams, 1998). Therefore, followers become reluctant to secede from the group, and they have pride in the group.

In addition, some behaviors of charismatic leaders contribute to group cohesiveness. First, charismatic leaders display a strong confidence in the moral rightness of their group (House, 1977). Consequently, followers attribute high levels of moral character to their groups. Second, charismatic leaders emphasize mutual support among followers (Roberts, 1985), which, in turn, develops interpersonal attraction among them. Third, charismatic leadership induces followers to be similar in many respects such as in their values and beliefs (House, 1977). As the

similarity-attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971) notes, such similarity among followers promotes positive feelings among themselves. Together, high levels of morality of the group, the mutual support, and the similarity among followers enhance group cohesiveness.

Lastly, followers’ high need for affiliation manifests itself through organizational citizenship behavior. OCB is an individual behavior that is discretionary or not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that, in the aggregate, promotes the effective functioning of the organization (Organ, 1988: 4). Williams and Anderson (1991) once proposed that OCB can be directed toward either the organization as a whole or toward individuals. Followers’ enhanced need for affiliation and identification with a charismatic leader impels them to do for the leader more than what they would be otherwise expected to do. In addition, with a high sense of collective identity and group cohesion, followers are willing to display a helping behavior toward their co-workers. Several empirical studies have consistently demonstrated that the followers of charismatic leaders engage more extensively in OCB (Deluga, 1995; Koh et al., 1995; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Rafferty & Griffin, 2004). In particular, Podsakoff and his colleagues (2000) found from their meta-analysis that charismatic leadership was strongly, positively related to the prevalence of OCB.

Proposition 3b: Followers with a high need for affiliation which is enhanced by the empathic behavior of a charismatic leader perceive strong collective identity and show organizational citizenship behavior directed toward the leader and co-workers. Their groups will thus be highly cohesive.

Self-Leadership

Self-leadership is a comprehensive self-influence that concerns managing oneself in the performance of naturally motivating tasks, as well as equally managing oneself in the performance of work that is not naturally motivating but must be done (Manz, 1986).

Empowerment behavior on the part of a charismatic leader enables followers to have more autonomy in task performance. Furthermore, the need for power of followers as enhanced by following a charismatic leader


leads them to exercise more influence over their task environment and bear more causal responsibility for their decisions. As their perceptions of autonomy and responsibility increase, they no longer remain passive and habituated but rather become self-regulating and autonomous followers (Howell, 1988). They are able to decide the details of the work for themselves and regulate their behavior without detailed guidance from the leader (Manz, 1986). Consequently, they feel independent of their leader and are eventually converted from followers into leaders (Graham, 1988). Their strong feelings of efficacy and independence help them to develop and exercise self-leadership.

Self-leadership of followers also enables them to participate more actively in the charismatic leadership process (Howell & Shamir, 2005). This means that followers who exercise self-leadership affect not only their own behavior but also the charismatic leader’s behavior.

Proposition 3c: Followers with a high need for power which is enhanced by the empowering behavior of a charismatic leader are motivated to develop and exercise self-leadership.

Contextual Factors of Charismatic

Leadership

We have argued thus far that charismatic leadership works through the three needs of the followers, which, in turn, improve individual and organizational effectiveness. However, some scholars (e.g., Howell, 1997; Pawar & Eastman, 1997; Pillai & Meindl, 1999; Shamir & Howell, 1999) have begun to realize that the effects of charismatic leadership may depend on the context. On this basis, there are reasons to believe that these motivational processes may not be universally applicable to all organizations and all followers. Some followers and organizations may have higher receptivity to charismatic leadership than others (Howell & Shamir, 2005; Pawar & Eastman, 1997). The effectiveness of charismatic leadership may, therefore, be enhanced by certain contextual factors and be impaired by others.

Many organizational factors influences the motivational effectiveness of charismatic leadership. First, when dissatisfaction with the

status quo is prevalent in an organization, the effect of charismatic leadership is more pronounced. A sense of distress from the dissatisfaction stimulates a desire for change (Howell, 1997; House et al., 1991; Roberts, 1985). In this situation, the charismatic leader’s envisioning behavior to clarify the direction for future change is particularly important and effective.

Second, according to Ouchi (1980), an organization uses three possible methods in order to control the behaviors of organizational members: market, bureaucracy, and clan. In particular, clan control involves the use of shared values, beliefs, and commitments to control behaviors. In an organization with clan cultures, the empathic behavior of charismatic leaders which helps align individual interests with collective interests is especially crucial and effective in building common values among followers, which may in turn foster concerted action, collective identity, and group cohesiveness.

Third, an organic structure (Burns & Stalker, 1966) is successful when each employee can exercise decision-making power and have open, lateral communication with peers. With this organizational structure, the empowering behavior of charismatic leaders is more effective (Pawar & Eastman, 1997).

Fourth, the charismatic leaders themselves are often constrained by the larger organizational system or environmental factors in terms of how much discretion they can exercise (Hambrick & Finkelsetin, 1987), although they can overcome these obstacles to some extent. Thus, to the extent that charismatic leaders enjoy great latitude which frees them from other organizational constraints, their envisioning, empathy, and empowerment are readily accepted by followers, and, hence, charismatic leadership becomes more effective.

Proposition 4a: The motivational effects of charismatic leadership on followers are contingent on various organizational-level factors in a way that charismatic leadership will be more effective with discontent with the status quo, clan culture, organic organizational structure, and managerial discretion of charismatic leaders.


Some task factors also have an impact on the effectiveness of charismatic leadership. To the extent that tasks are clearly specified, highly specialized, and routinary, there is very little room for the leader to inculcate tasks with value-laden meaning and significance. Within this task environment, charismatic leadership makes little contribution to task performance.

In contrast, when tasks change frequently, are difficult and complex, and are ambiguous regarding the task requirements and expectations, the values and visions of the organization increase the intrinsic motivation of employees. Thus, the motivation and commitment required for followers to put forth special efforts needed to achieve challenging visions is enhanced by envisioning the behavior of charismatic leaders (Howell, 1997).

To the extent that tasks require collaborative efforts among employees, charismatic leaders are found to be more productive than non-charismatic leaders (Jung & Avolio, 1999). This is because they facilitate lateral communication among followers and help build strong emotional bonds among them.

Proposition 4b: The motivational effects of charismatic leadership on followers are contingent on various task factors in a way that charismatic leadership will be more effective with less structured, complex, and collaborative tasks.

Lastly, some followers have more

receptivity to charismatic leadership than others. Although several authors (e.g., Howell, 1988; Howell & Shamir 2005) suggest that personality characteristics such as locus of control and tolerance for ambiguity may affect the effectiveness of charismatic leadership, there exists little empirical evidence. However, followers’ cultural values have consistently been found to make charismatic leadership more effective than non-charismatic leadership (Jung & Avolio, 1999; Pawar & Eastman, 1997; Pillai & Meindl, 1998). Charismatic leadership is closely related to the articulation of a group mission, the need for the sacrifice of individual over collective interest in the attainment of that mission, and the emphasis of strong emotional relationships among followers. Collectivists have a strong inclination to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the group and to maintain

harmonious relationships with others (Triandis, 1995). Thus, charismatic leaders’ envisioning behavior to emphasize group mission and empathy to encourage followers to understand each other are particularly effective with collectivistic followers.

Proposition 4c: The motivational effects of charismatic leadership on followers are contingent on individual characteristics of followers in a way that charismatic leadership will be more effective with collectivistic followers.

Taken together, charismatic leadership is

not equally applicable to all situations (Pillai & Meindl, 1999; Shamir & Howell, 1999). Some situations have a higher degree of receptivity to charismatic leadership (Pawar & Eastman, 1997), which, in turn, raises the concerns of the fit between charismatic leadership and contextual factors. Thus, awareness of the contextual influences on the effectiveness of charismatic leadership has important implications for leadership practices. The contexts should be taken carefully into account in the decision of the placement of leaders who have charismatic characteristics. In addition, the training of charismatic leaders should also be guided by the consideration of contextual factors. Therefore, the consideration of contextual factors will allow organizations to reap greater benefits from the motivational effects of charismatic leadership.

Conclusions

Charismatic leadership is comprised of

three components: envisioning, empathy, and empowerment. These key components stimulate followers’ need for achievement, need for affiliation, and need for power. These motivational effects of charismatic leadership then act to improve followers’ role perceptions, task performance, job satisfaction, sense of collective identity, group cohesiveness, organizational citizenship behavior, and self-leadership. In addition, the motivational effects of charismatic leadership will be moderated by various contextual factors.

Shamir and his colleagues (1993) emphasized the need for research on the motivational effects behind a charismatic leader’s success in leading followers to


transcend their self-interest for the sake of the organization. Several authors (Gardner & Avolio, 1998; Shamir et al., 1993, 1998) have proposed theoretical arguments and empirical evidence on the effects of charismatic leadership on followers’ feelings of self-efficacy, self-esteem, and self-worth. According to them, by generating positive self-perceptions among followers, charismatic leaders enhance followers’ personal commitment to the leader and the mission, cause self-sacrificial behavior and OCB, and improve the sense of task meaningfulness.

The theoretical arguments outlined here complement the existing framework for studying the motivational effects of charismatic leadership. In particular, our arguments emphasized the transformation of followers’ needs by the three behavioral components of charismatic leadership. This delineates an alternative path through which the effects of charismatic leadership are realized. A more comprehensive understanding of the motivational effects of charismatic leadership will be possible when the effects of these diverse mechanisms, which have been articulated in the existing literature and this study, are considered simultaneously, and this should be one direction for future research in this area.

There are a few additional considerations which were not sufficiently discussed here. First, we emphasized only the functional aspects of socialized charismatic leadership. However, as mentioned earlier, the abuse of power, which is often shown in personalized charismatic leadership, is likely to negatively affect followers’ motivation (Sankowsky, 1995). Future studies need to explore the motivational effects of personalized charismatic leadership.

We also argued that the motivational effects of charismatic leadership are influenced by the context in which the interpersonal relationship between the leader and his/her followers is embedded. However, we focused only on the effect of contextual factors within the organization. Further research is required to identify additional external contextual factors, such as social norms and economic development, which may influence the effectiveness of charismatic leadership. In addition, the validity of this reasoning about contextual factors is ultimately an empirical issue. Some contextual

factors have already been incorporated into several empirical studies, but more studies are definitely necessary to accurately account for the effect of those factors. Such efforts will clarify the boundary conditions defining the motivational effects of charismatic leadership.

References

Adler, N. J. (1997). Global leadership: Women

leaders. Management International Review, 37, 171-196.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the influence of transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 199-218.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thoughts and action: A social-cognitive view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 827-832.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). The implications of transactional and transformational leadership for individual, team, and organizational development. In W. Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 4, pp. 231-272). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Bass, B. M., Waldman, D. A., Avolio, B. J., & Bebb, M. (1987). Transformational leadership and the falling dominoes effect. Group and Organization Studies, 12, 73-87.

Behling, O., & McFillen, J. M. (1996). A syncretical model of charismatic/transformational leadership.


Group and Organization Management, 21, 163-191.

Burke, W. W. (1986). Leadership as empowering others. In S. Srivastva (Ed.), Executive power (pp. 51-77). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1966). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.

Butler, Jr., J. K. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution of a condition of trust inventory. Journal of Management, 17, 643-663.

Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

Chen, C. C., & Meindl, J. R. (1991). The construction of leadership images in the popular press: The case of Donald Burr and People Express. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 521-551.

Conger, J. A. (1989). The charismatic leader: Behind the mystique of exceptional leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13, 471-482.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

De Hoogh, A. H. B., Den Hartog, D. N., Koopman, P. L., Thierry, H., Van den Berg, P. T., Van der Weide, J. G., & Wilderom, C. P. M. (2005). Leader motives, charismatic leadership, and subordinates’ work attitude in the profit and voluntary sector. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 17-38.

Deluga, R. J. (1995). The relationship between attributional charismatic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1652-1669.

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611-628.

Dubinsky, A. J., Yammarino, F. J., & Jolson, M. A. (1995). An examination of linkages

between personal characteristics and dimensions of transformational leadership. Journal of Business and Psychology, 9, 315-335.

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 735-744.

Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23, 32-58.

George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53, 1027-1055.

Gist, M. E. (1987). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 12, 472-485.

Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78, 78-90.

Graham, J. W. (1988). Transformational leadership: Fostering follower autonomy, not automatic followership. In J. G. Hunt, B. R. Bagliga, H. P. Dachler, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 73-79). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Hambrick, D. C., & Finkelstein, S. (1987). Managerial discretion: A bridge between polar views of organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 171-214). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Heynes, R. W., Veroff, J., & Atkinson, J. W. (1958). A scoring manual for the affiliation motive. In J. W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in fantasy, action, and society (pp. 205-218). New York: Van Nostrand.

Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1998). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.

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.

House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 3, 81-108.


House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and visionary theories. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 81-107). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., & Woycke, J. (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. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 213-236). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Howell, J. M. (1997). Organization contexts, charismatic and exchange leadership. KLSP: Transformational Leadership, Working Papers, Academy of Leadership Press.

Howell, J. M., & Frost, P. J. (1989). A laboratory study of charismatic leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 243-269.

Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30, 96-112.

Johnson, R. S. (1998). Home Depot renovates. Fortune, Nov. 23, 200-206.

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 36-51.

Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Effects of leadership style and followers’ cultural orientation on performance in group and individual task conditions. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 208-218.

Kelleher, H. (1997). A culture of commitment. Leader to Leader, 4, 20-24.

Kelleher, H. (2004). Building leaders and how their innovative people-culture has lifted the airline to success. Babson Insight, Babson College.

Kellett, J. B., Humphrey, R. H., & Sleeth, R. G. (2002). Empathy and complex task

performance: Two routes to leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 523-544.

Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51-60.

Khatri, N., Ng, H. A., & Lee, T. H. (1999). Charisma and vision: An empirical study. Working paper #11-99. School of Accountancy and Business Research Center, Nanyang Technological University, Signapore.

Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 36-51.

Kochran, N. (1997). Anita Roddick: Soap and social action. World Business, 3, 46-47.

Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and students performance in Singapore. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 319-333.

Kudisch, J. D., Poteet, M. L., Dobbins, G. H., Rush, M. C., & Russell, J. E. A. (1995). Expert power, referent power, and charisma: Toward the resolution of a theoretical debate. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10, 177-195.

Lewis, K. M. (2000). When leaders display emotion: How followers respond to negative emotional expression of male and female leaders. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 221-234.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A review of relationships with antecedents and consequent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 259-309.

Manz, C. C. (1986). Self-leadership: Toward an expanded theory of self-influence processes in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 11, 585-600.

Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1986). Beyond imitation: Complex behavioral and affective linkages resulting from exposure to leadership training models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 571-578.


Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27, 267-298.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.

McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, CA: Scott Foresman.

Meindl, J. R. (1990). On leadership: An alternative to the conventional wisdom. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 159-203). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Beyond the charismatic leader: Leadership and organizational change. California Management Review, 32, 77-97.

Nahavandi, A. (2006). The art and science of leadership (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Ouchi, W. G. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 129-141.

Pawar, B. S., & Eastman, K. K. (1997). The nature and implications of contextual influences on transformational leadership: A conceptual examination. Academy of Management Review, 22, 80-109.

Pillai, R., & Meindl, J. R. (1998). Context and charisma: A “meso” level examination of the relationship of organic structure, collectivism, and crisis to charismatic leadership. Journal of Management, 24, 643-671.

Pillai, R., & Williams, E. A. (1998). Does leadership matter in the political arena? Voter perceptions of candidates’ transformational and charismatic leadership and the 1996 U. S. presidential vote. The Leadership Quarterly, 9, 397-416.

Pillai, R., Williams, E. A., Lowe, K. B., & Jung, D. I. (2003). Personality, transformational leadership, trust, and the 2000 U.S. presidential vote. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 161-192.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513-563.

Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 329-354.

Roberts, N. C. (1985). Transforming leadership: A process of collective action. Human Relations, 38, 1023-1046.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185-211.

Sankowsky, D. (1995). The charismatic leader as narcissist: Understanding the abuse of power. Organizational Dynamics, 23, 57-71.

Sashkin, M. (1988). The visionary leader. In J. A. Conger & R. A. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 122-160). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. Journal of Management, 16, 693-703.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577-594.

Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 257-283.

Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates’ attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors’ appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 387-409.


Simonton, D. K. (1988). Presidential style: Personality, biography, and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 928-936.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483-504.

Steers, R. M., Porter, L. W., & Bigley, G. A. (1996). Motivation and leadership at work (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Strange, J. M., & Mumford, M. D. (2002). The origins of vision: Charismatic versus ideological leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 343-377.

Strange, J. M., & Mumford, M. D. (2005). The origins of vision: Effects of reflection, models, and analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 121-148.

Tichy, N. M., & DeVanna, M. A. (1986). The transformational leader. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1991). Cultural leadership in organizations. Organization Science, 2, 149-169.

Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Adding to contingent reward behavior: The augmenting effect of charismatic leadership. Group and Organization Studies, 15, 381-394.

Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 134-143.

Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1999). CEO charismatic leadership: Levels-of-management and levels-of-analysis effects. Academy of Management Review, 24, 266-285.

Weber, M. (1968). On charisma and institution building. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Westley, F., & Mintzberg, H. (1988). Visionary leadership and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 17-32.

Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A. & Werner, J. M. (1998). Top managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review, 23, 513-530.

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601-617.

Wong, C. S., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 243-274.

Yammarino, F. J., Dubinsky, A. J., Comer, L. B., & Jolson, M. A. (1997). Women and transformational and contingent reward leadership: A multiple-level-analysis perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 205-222.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285-305.

Zacharatos, A., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Development and effects of transformational leadership in adolescents. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 211-226.

Appendix

Examples of the Three Components of

Charismatic Leadership 1. Envisioning: The following

charismatic leaders do not frame their companies in a traditional way. They attempt to inculcate new values and purposes into their companies. In other words, they adopt a greater and nobler cause for the future of their companies. By doing so, they help employees develop a broad perspective of the company and portray its ideal future state.


Arthur Blank (Co-founder of Home Depot): He likes to remind his employees that they are “in the business of making people’s dreams come true.” He helps employees view their relationship with customers in a different light, one that is much more meaningful and motivating than simply “selling hammers and nails” (Johnson, 1998).

Richard Branson (Founder of the

Virgin Group): He tries to build an empire by breaking all the rules and successfully taking on challenges that everyone told him would fail. He states that the bottom line has never been a reason for doing his business. It is the satisfaction from creating things that he is proud of—it is in making a difference in his craft that he is truly proud of. He always wants to make sure that whatever he builds or participates in, he can truly be proud of it. Thus, his vision of being creative motivates his employees to take risks in business. (Nahavandi, 2006)

Anita Roddick (Founder of the

Body Shop): Her vision of the company began with a desire to supply women around the world with cosmetics, soaps, and lotions made from all-natural products that have not been tested on animals. Her strong commitment to running a socially and environmentally responsible company is symbolized in her ideology and message to her employees that they should aspire to be “true planetary citizens.” To this end, she has advocated reductions in world poverty, violence against women, and nuclear testing. She emphasizes on global responsibilities since company decisions affect not just the world of business, but have corresponding effects as well to world problems like poverty, national security, and the environment. She models her socially active role by sacrificing profits; she will not do business in countries she believes are not attempting to address her social and environmental causes. As such, the vision of the company has strong ideological causes which transcend traditional, narrowly defined economic goals. (Adler, 1997)

2. Empathy: The following charismatic

leaders show and emphasize leadership styles which are more people-oriented and considerate.

Donald Burr (Founder of People Express): He has often been depicted as treating employees more like family, keeping his door open to his followers in order to stay close to them, showing concern for their interests, and listening to them. He was also deeply interested in creating a humane organization and was guided by a fundamental belief in people. (Chen & Meindl, 1991)

Anita Roddick (Founder of the

Body Shop): She always emphasizes strong personal relationships with her employees. She insists on being called Anita by her employees at every level and tries to spend as much time with them as possible. She also states that the true leaders can see through the eyes of their followers and not through their own eyes. True leaders should be able to feel the same excitement that followers feel. To this end, leaders should work with followers and find out what they truly need. (Kochran, 1997)

3. Empowerment: The following

charismatic leaders do not make their employees dependent on them. By expressing their confidence in employees, they encourage them to take initiative in task performance and decision making.

Robert Lipp (senior advisor of

JPMorgan Chase): He comments about his experience at Chemical Bank: “I knew I had to change [my followers’] mentality from being lost in a bureaucracy to feeling like the president of their own bank. I had to convince them they were special—that they had the power to transform the organization….” (Conger, 1989).

Herbert D. Kelleher (Executive

Chairman of the Board of Southwest Airlines): He describes his beliefs in leadership as follows: (1) “A financial analyst once asked me if I was afraid of losing control of our organization. I told him I’ve never had control, and I never wanted it. If you create an environment where the people truly participate, you don’t need control. They know what needs to be done, and they do it. And the more that people will devote themselves to your cause on a voluntary basis, a willing basis, the fewer hierarchs and control mechanisms you need. We’re not looking for


blind obedience. We’re looking for people who, on their own initiative, want to be doing what they’re doing because they consider it to be a worthy objective. I have always believed that the best leader is the best server.” (Kelleher, 1997). (2) “We believe that every person in the company is a leader in one way or another, no matter what their position in the company might be, ramp agents, flight attendants, whomever it might be.” (Kelleher, 2004)

Jack Welch (Former CEO of General Electric): He implemented a program entitled “Work out,” the purpose of which was to undermine the layers of bureaucracy and other obstacles to employee empowerment at the lower levels of the organization. The program created forums for employees to speak candidly about the management of their business units without fear of retribution from senior managers. In two- to three-day sessions of 50 to 100 people, these forums openly critiqued the management practices in an operating group with a specific focus on the bureaucracy and on unproductive behaviors that were impeding employees’ effectiveness or efficacy. (Conger & Kanungo, 1998)

A Motivational Theory of Charismatic Leadership

Documents

Transcript of A Motivational Theory of Charismatic Leadership