Charismatic Leadership theories

Unknown (1992). Charismatic Leadership in Service-Producing Organizations. International Journal of Service Industry Management 3(2)

Abstract:

A new genre of leadership theory, emerging over the last decade and a half and variously referred to as charismatic, visionary, inspirational, or transformational, derives from approximately 25 empirical investigations based on a wide variety of samples and methods and conducted in a wide variety of cultures. Strong convergence among the findings of these studies indicates that the new genre of theory accounts for substantial variance in leader and follower effectiveness, follower motivation, commitment, satisfaction, and team performance. Charismatic leadership is likely to emerge and be effective in organizations committed to contributing non-routine, high quality services or products to customers or clients. Consequently, such leadership is likely to emerge and to enhance the effectiveness of many service organizations. It is especially needed in organizations that function on the basis of an organizational philosophy that includes social and moral values as well a! s profit maximization.

Copyright MCB University Press Limited 1992

Full Text:

The purpose of this article is to provide a summary of recent research and theory concerning charismatic leadership and to discuss the relevance of such leadership to service-producing organizations. Charismatic leadership is likely to emerge and be effective in organizations which are committed to contributing non-routine, high quality services or products to customers or clients. Consequently, such leadership is likely to emerge and to enhance the effectiveness of many service organizations. Charismatic leadership is especially needed in organizations which function on the basis of an organizational philosophy which includes social and moral values as well as profit maximization. Berlew 5! has argued that most organizations, even routine profit-maximizing organizations, have substantial opportunities to contribute to social and moral ends which are over and above pragmatic economic ends. For example, Berlew lists several ideological value contributions that most organiz! ations can offer their members and their clients or customers, in addition to contributing economic value to owners and providing income-earning opportunities to members. Some of these contributions which are especially relevant to service organizations are:

* a chance to be part of an honest, non-exploitative business and to provide customers or clients with high quality products and services;

* a chance to do something well--for example, to be really creative, to contribute something of one's self to the service offered by the organization;

* a chance to change the way things are--for example, participating in civic organizations to ensure a healthy and safe environment for those who have contact with, or rely on, the business organizations in the immediate community.

One could add a number of other contributions that most service organizations can make. For example:

* professional development of employees to levels much higher than their expectations and aspirations--to levels they did not know they could attain;

* creation of jobs which offer psychological health and intrinsic satisfaction as well as freedom from economic want;

* elevation of the standard of living of a number of people as a result of excellence in competitive performance.

Given the increase in the number of service organizations in the international economy in recent years, and the expected changes in the business climate as a result of the formulation of the European Economic Community, service organizations in Europe are in an opportune position to make contributions of the kind listed above. It is the identification of such values in the form of a vision that is the sine qua non of charismatic leadership. However, charismatic leadership is much more than the creation and articulation of an ideological vision. Charismatic leadership consists of the infusion of values and the implementation of policies, programmes and actions to support the vision. This is accomplished by arousing in the membership the motives that are relevant to the accomplishment of the vision and engaging the self-concepts of the members in the pursuit of the vision. The essence of charismatic leadership consists of: the articulation of a transcendent ideological visi! on--one that transcends the self-interests of followers; motive arousal of followers; and the engagement of followers' self-definition, self-esteem and self-worth in the vision and mission of the leader, or the organization for which the leader stands. In this article we briefly summarize the most recent theory and the available empirical evidence concerning charismatic leadership. We then discuss some of the implications of this theory and evidence for service-producing organizations.

RECENT THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENTS

During the last decade and a half there has been a substantial breakthrough in leadership research and theory. A number of authors have advanced theories of outstanding leadership variously referred to as "charismatic", "visionary", "transformational" or "inspirational".

Charismatic theory was first referred to by Max Weber 6!. House has since advanced a psychological theory of charismatic leadership 7!. "Transformational leadership" is a

term first used by Burns 8! and this concept was subsequently extended and operationalized by Bass in his book, Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations 9!. Yukl and Van Fleet used the term "inspirational leadership" in an award-winning article in 1982 10!, while Bennis and Nanus advanced a theory of visionary leadership based on interviews with 90 chief executive officers 11!--a theory extended and operationalized by Sashkin 12!. Conger and Kanungo presented an attribution-based theory of charismatic leadership 13!; Trice and Beyer 14! described how charismatic leaders routinize aspects of the charismatic mission to ensure its vitality subsequently. Tichy and Devanna 15! describe transformational leaders' strategies and behaviours based on interviews with 11 reputed transformational leaders. More! recently House et al. 1! presented a test of a theory that integrates House's 1977 theory of charismatic leadership 7! with McClelland's Leader Motive Profile Theory. Several additional theoretical extensions have been advanced 2,3,4!.

WHAT IS THIS NEW GENRE OF THEORY?

In this new genre of theory, leadership is claimed to affect followers in ways that are quantitatively greater than, and qualitatively different from, the effects specified in past theories. My colleagues and I refer to this new genre of theories as charismatic leadership theory because charisma is a central concept in all of them, either explicit or implicit. According to this new genre of leadership theory, such leaders transform the needs, values, preferences and aspirations of followers from self-interests to collective interests. Further, they cause followers to become highly committed to the leader's mission, to make significant personal sacrifices in the interest of the mission, and to perform above and beyond the call of duty.

ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHARISMATIC AND TRADITIONAL LEADERSHIP THEORIES

In contrast with earlier theories which concern the effects of leaders on follower cognitions, satisfaction and performance, charismatic theories take as their dependent variables emotional attachment to the leader on the part of the followers; emotional and motivational arousal of the followers as a consequence of the leader's behaviours, and thus enhancement of follower valences and values with respect to the mission articulated by the leader; followers' self-esteem, trust and confidence in the leader; values that are of major importance to followers; and follower intrinsic motivation.

The leader behaviour specified by charismatic theories is also different. The earlier theories describe leader behaviour in terms of leader-follower relationships 16,17,18!, providing direction and support 19,20! and reinforcement behaviours 21!. In contrast, the new leadership paradigm emphasizes symbolic leader behaviour, visionary and inspirational ability, non-verbal communication, appeal to ideological values, and intellectual stimulation and empowerment of followers by the leader. Charismatic leaders transform organizations primarily by infusing into them ideological values and moral purpose, thus inducing strong commitment rather than by affecting the instrumental

cognitions or the task environment of followers, or by offering material incentives and the threat of punishment 2!.

EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

As of our last count, there have been at least 25 studies of this new genre of leadership theory. These studies have been conducted using a wide variety of methods, including laboratory experimentation, participant observation, cross-sectional and longitudinal survey research in natural settings, case studies, qualitative interpretative analysis, rigorous content analysis of interviews, observation in a management game, and analysis of archival data.

These studies have also been based on a wide variety of samples, including US national presidents, university students, informal project champions, chief executive officers, military combat and non-combat squad leaders, naval and air-force cadet squadron-leaders, and middle-and lower-level managers in the USA. In addition, middle managers in India, school principals in Singapore, and managers of supermarkets in Holland have been studied. The reader is referred to a recent article by House and Shamir for a review of these studies 4!.

THE EFFECTS OF CHARISMATIC LEADERS

Space limitations prevent a detailed review of the methodology and the specific findings of each of these studies. However, collectively, the findings indicate that charismatic behaviours produce the theoretical charismatic effects on followers specified above as dependent variables, receive higher performance ratings, have more satisfied and more highly motivated followers, and are viewed as more effective leaders by their superiors and followers than others in positions of leadership. Further, the effect size of charismatic leader behaviour on follower satisfaction and performance generally ranges well below 0.01 probability of error owing to change, with correlations frequently ranging in the neighbourhood of 0.50 or better.

CHARISMATIC LEADER BEHAVIOURS

According to House's 1976 theory of charismatic leadership 7!, the leader behaviours that theoretically result in these effects are:

(1) Articulation of an ideological vision--a vision that specifies a better future stated in terms of social contribution and moral values, such as human rights, peace, freedom, order, equality and attainment of status and privileges that are claimed to be the moral right of the followers.

(2) Communication of messages that contain reference to distal as opposed to proximal goals, frequent reference to values and moral justifications and to the collective identity, and frequent reference to followers' worth and efficacy as individuals.

(3) Behaviourally role-modelling the values implied in the vision by personal example.

(4) Expressing high performance expectations of followers.

(5) Expressing a high degree of confidence in followers' ability to meet such expectations.

(6) Behaviours that selectively arouse the non-conscious achievement, power and affiliative motives of followers, when these motives are specifically relevant to the attainment of the vision.

Other authors have suggested additional charismatic leader behaviours. Weber 6! argued that charismatic leaders offer radical solutions to major social problems. Bass suggested that charismatic leaders intellectually stimulate their followers and foster follower autonomy and self-leadership 9!. Conger and Kanungo 13! and Sashkin 12! argue that charismatic leaders take extraordinary risks in pursuit of their vision and are sensitive to follower needs and considerate of followers. With the exception of (6) above, which has not yet been empirically investigated, all the above behaviours have been shown empirically to differentiate charismatic leaders from non-charismatic leaders and to have a positive effect on leader and follower effectiveness and follower motivation and satisfaction.

PERSONALITY OF CHARISMATIC LEADERS

House's 7! theory of charismatic leadership includes a description of personality characteristics that theoretically differentiate charismatic from non-charismatic, leaders. According to this theory, charismatic leaders are higher on self-confidence, non-verbal expressiveness, ability to be articulate, and the need for influence or power. Further, according to this theory, charismatic leaders have exceptionally strong convictions in the moral correctness of their beliefs.

Support for the general proposition that personality traits differentiate charismatic from non-charismatic leaders has also been reported in six recent field studies. These are reviewed in some detail by House and Howell 3!. An interesting and somewhat surprising picture of the charismatic personality can be drawn from the research cited above. House and Howell concluded from a review of the above findings that charismatic leaders are differentiated from non-charismatic leaders by several personality traits. These include high energy and endurance; cognitive (as opposed to non-conscious or emotional) achievement-oriented values, work involvement and enthusiasm; strong tendencies to be creative, innovative, visionary and inspirational; strong inclinations to be confident in and encouraging towards followers; a high desire for change and a propensity to take risks, strong self-confidence and good social adjustment, and a tendency to be assertive and yet socially adroit; a ! high need for power, coupled with a strong concern for the moral and non-exploitative use of power in a socially desirable manner; a tendency to be pragmatic and willing to exercise influence with a variety of influence tactics but not to be dominant, tough, forceful, aggressive or critical; a tendency to be intellectually

stimulating and show a strong concern for the development of followers; and a tendency to be nurturant, socially sensitive, and sensitive to and considerate of follower needs.

From the above review, it can be safely concluded that there is a strong convergence of the findings from studies concerned with charismatic leadership and those concerned with transformational, inspirational and visionary leadership. All these studies demonstrate the importance of the leader behaviours identified in earlier theorizing by Bass 9! and by House 7!, and are consistent with later theorizing by Conger and Kanungo 13!; Bennis and Nanus 11!; Tichy and Devanna 15!; Sashkin 12!; and Trice and Beyer 14!. Collectively, the findings indicate that leaders who engage in the theoretical charismatic behaviours produce a select set of behaviours that are characteristic of charismatic leaders. These conclusions were demonstrated not only in the US, but also in Singapore, India and The Netherlands. Further, the limited available evidence from US studies suggests that there are selected personality characteristics, as well as behaviours, that differentiate charismatic from n! on-charismatic leaders.

While the personality characteristics, behaviours and effects of charismatic leaders are substantially different from those of non-charismatic leaders, until recently there has been no theory to explain the motivational processes by which such leaders have the profound effects on followers that they have. Shamir et al. have advanced a theory to account for such effects 2!. This theory explains the effects of charismatic leader behaviour as a function of the leader's ability to engage follower self-concepts and arouse follower motives. We briefly restate this theory here.

MOTIVATIONAL PROCESSES SELF-CONCEPT THEORY

The self-concept theory asserts that some of the most important effects of charismatic leaders are that they increase the intrinsic value of effort and goal accomplishment, followers' level of self-worth and self-efficacy, expectancies of goal or mission accomplishment, faith in a better future, and commitment to the values of the leader's vision--and consequently to the goals of the mission set forth by the leader. More specifically, such leaders increase the intrinsic valence of efforts and goals by linking them to valued aspects of the followers' self-concept, thus harnessing the motivational forces of self-expression, self-consistency, self-esteem and self-worth. Further, charismatic leaders change the salience hierarchy of values and identities within the followers' self-concept, thus increasing the probability that these values and identities will be implicated in action.

Since values and identities are socially based, their control of behaviour is likely to represent a shift from the instrumental to the moral and from concern with individual gains to concern with contributions to a collective. Finally, the theory asserts that charismatic leaders increase self-efficacy and collective efficacy through positive evaluations, higher expectations, and by emphasizing the individual's ties to the collective. These effects on followers' sense of efficacy result in the instillation of faith in a better future.

This theory asserts that leaders implicate the self-concept of followers by engaging in behaviours specified in the following proposition:

PROPOSITION 1. Compared with the messages of non-charismatic leaders, the deliberate and non-deliberate messages of charismatic leaders will contain more reference to:

* values and moral justifications and less reference to tangible outcomes;

* the collective and the collective identity;

* history;

* positive aspects to followers' worth and efficacy as individuals;

* distal goals and less reference to proximal goals.

The theory also asserts that, when leaders engage in the behaviours specified in the 1976 theory of leadership (articulation of an ideological vision, behaviourally role-modelling the values implied in the vision by personal example, expressing high performance expectations of followers and expressing a high degree of confidence in followers' ability to meet such expectations), together with the behaviours specified in Proposition 1, followers' self-concepts will become strongly engaged. Thus:

PROPOSITION 2. In comparison with followers of non-charismatic leaders, followers of charismatic leaders will have a higher:

* salience of the collective identity in their self-concept;

* sense of consistency between their self-concept and their actions on behalf of the leader and the collective;

* level of self-esteem and a greater sense of self-worth;

* similarity between their self-concept and their perception of the leader;

* sense of collective efficacy;

* sense of "meaningfulness".

Thus the self-concept-based theory of motivation specifies a unique set of behaviours and effects of charismatic leaders. In addition to engaging follower self-concept, we argue that charismatic leaders also arouse non-conscious motives of followers. We now turn to a discussion of the effects of leaders on such follower non-conscious motives.

FOLLOWER MOTIVE AROUSAL AS A FURTHER EXTENSION

House and Shamir 4! argue that charismatic leaders arouse powerful motivations of followers and that such motive arousal results in important effects: further engagement of follower self-concepts, strong enhancement of follower intrinsic satisfaction from participation in the charismatic mission, strong enhancement of intrinsic valence of goal pursuit, and increased commitment to the vision, mission and goal accomplishment. House and Shamir also further argue that these effects are attained as a result of selective motive arousal of followers. We now turn to a discussion of each of these issues.

SELECTIVE AROUSAL OF RELEVANT FOLLOWER MOTIVES. Leaders selectively arouse follower non-conscious achievement, affiliation and power motives. Motive arousal results in increased engagement of the self, self-monitoring and self-evaluation. Such arousal engages the self-worth component of motivation and increases motivation on the part of followers.

Leaders selectively arouse follower motives because the performance consequences of motive arousal are contingent on the requirements of the mission. More specifically, when task demands of subordinates require personal assumption of calculated risks, achievement-oriented initiative, assumption of personal responsibility, and persistence towards challenging goals, the arousal of the achievement motive will enhance intrinsic satisfaction and motivation and will facilitate effective performance and goal attainment.

When the task demands of subordinates require them to be persuasive, assert influence over or exercise control over others, or be highly competitive or combative, the arousal of the power motive is hypothesized to enhance intrinsic motivation and satisfaction and facilitate performance. When task demands require affiliative behaviour, as in the case of tasks requiring cohesiveness teamwork and peer support, the arousal of the affiliative motive becomes highly relevant to intrinsic motivation, satisfaction and performance. Thus we assert that one of the major effects that charismatic leaders have on their followers is arousal of motives that are especially relevant to the mission envisaged by the leader.

FURTHER ENGAGEMENT OF FOLLOWER SELF-CONCEPTS. Under conditions of motive arousal, individuals increasingly focus their attention on their own behaviour in pursuit of motive satisfaction. They focus attention on the goals pursued, sharpen their cognitive representations of goal attainment, anticipate and vicariously experience the feelings they will have as a consequence of goal attainment and as a consequence of failure, consider the barriers to goal attainment, form strategies to overcome barriers, anticipate the support they will receive from others, calculate their own strengths and weaknesses with respect to goal attainment, monitor and reflect on their progress, use available information for assessing progress towards their goals, seek out and create additional sources of feedback, and adjust their behaviour to correct mistakes and dysfunctional strategies. (For a review of the relevant literature and empirical evidence with respect to the effects of motive arousal, ! see 22!.)

Motive arousal results in these behaviours spontaneously and for the most part non-consciously. That is, most individuals are not likely to be able to explain their behaviour

in response to motive arousal stimuli. Individuals may or may not even be aware of the specific stimuli that arouse their motives or the specific behaviours that are mobilized by such stimuli. As a consequence of motive arousal, individuals become further self-engaged and their feelings of self-worth and self-efficacy become contingent upon satisfying the aroused motives.

ENHANCEMENT OF FOLLOWER INTRINSIC VALENCE OF GOAL ACCOMPLISHMENT. As stated above, self-engagement enhances the intrinsic valence of goal accomplishment. Further, aroused motives lead to increased intrinsic satisfaction of goal accomplishment, because the goals become more valent when motives are aroused than when they are not. This is a well-established empirical generalization that has been demonstrated repeatedly in experimental studies by McClelland and his associates 22!.

ENHANCEMENT OF FOLLOWER INTRINSIC SATISFACTION FROM PARTICIPATION IN THE MISSION. Since motive arousal makes goals more valent, the behaviour involved in pursuit of the goals also becomes more positively or negatively valent, dependent on whether the individual experiences progress or failure in pursuit of the goal. Satisfaction results from progress and feelings of frustration and perhaps even depression results from failure to experience progress. Thus motive arousal results in powerful effects on follower motivation.

INCREASED COMMITMENT TO THE MISSION. Since motive arousal results in increased self-engagement, and since the experience of self-worth and self-efficacy is contingent on goal attainment, it becomes highly dissonant for the individual to resist commitment to the vision and to the mission of the leader. Thus motive arousal stimulated by the leader will result in enhanced and rather binding internalized commitment to the leader's goals and values.

It should be noted, however, that commitment is a double-edged sword. To the extent that the leader's goals and values are in conflict with those of the organization, such as when leaders represent a challenge to the status quo, charismatic leadership is likely to induce negative attitudes towards the organization and resistance to directives from management by organizational members. Thus charismatic leadership represents a strong force for or against member commitment to organizational goals.

CONDITIONS THAT FAVOUR THE EMERGENCE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP

It should be noted that not all organizations require charismatic leaders. Further, there are some intraorganizational conditions that favour the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leaders and other conditions that either suppress the leader's ability to express charismatic leader behaviour or conflict with the values and vision for which a charismatic leader might stand. Shamir et al. 2! have advanced a theoretical discussion of the conditions under which charismatic leadership is more likely to emerge and to

produce positive effects. Because there has been no empirical research on this topic, the following discussion must be considered speculative.

First, the organizational task is a relevant consideration. Recall that charismatic leadership gives meaning to efforts and goals by connecting them to followers' self-concepts and values. These values are likely to reflect, at least in part, the dominant values of society. Thus it follows that charismatic leadership is more likely to emerge and be effective when the organizational task is closely related to dominant social values than when it is unrelated to such values or contradicts them. Consequently, it is easier to translate the former task into a mission.

For example, given the Dutch passion for flowers, and Dutch pride in The Netherlands' canals, we would expect most Dutch citizens to be opposed to organizations that produce wastes and smoke emissions that threaten the natural environment in flower-producing geographical regions or pollute the canals and waterlands of The Netherlands. Further, we would expect charismatic leaders to emerge in flower-producing organizations and in social movements that oppose environmental pollution.

These examples illustrate the theoretical notion that the situation, or organization, must offer at least some opportunity for "moral" involvement. Otherwise charismatic leadership cannot emerge. Service organizations usually require a high degree of interaction between organizational members and the clients or customers served by the organization. Here we return to Berlew's 5! argument that such organizations offer their members opportunities to be part of a non-exploitative, honest business that provides significant services for clients and customers. Service employees can take pride in, and enjoy, providing for clients and customers, with whom they frequently interact, honest, high quality personalized service. Thus such service organizations offer fertile grounds for the emergence of charismatic leaders.

Secondly, charismatic leadership is more likely to be relevant under conditions that do not favour leadership based on the use of contingent extrinsic rewards and punishments. The use of contingent reward and punishment requires the leader to have the ability to specify and clarify goals, and to have considerable knowledge about the means for achieving the goals. Such extrinsic motivational practices require objective or highly consensual ways of measuring performance and assume that the leader has considerable discretion about the allocation of rewards on the basis of performance. Under such conditions, the utilitarian and calculative logic of a leader who uses extrinsic motivation can be clarified to the followers and adhered to by the leader 2!. Consequently, under such conditions, charismatic leadership is not required for effective performance of followers.

Thus it is argued that charismatic leadership is more likely to emerge when performance goals cannot be easily specified and measured and when the leader cannot link extrinsic rewards to individual performance. Service organizations that produce unique non-routine services are characterized by the absence of clear, specific and quantitative goals. Such organizations usually require members who devote diligence and personal care to

their work. Thus such service organizations are very likely to benefit from charismatic leadership.

Thirdly, charismatic leadership may be more appropriate under exceptional conditions, such as those requiring non-routine and unusually high performance. When conditions change or when the situation requires exceptional efforts, behaviours and sacrifices, extrinsically motivated non-charismatic leadership is not likely to be effective, since it is by definition "conditional" and these situations require "unconditional" commitment. Furthermore, in unstable conditions or when a new organization is being formed, there is more ambiguity and anxiety and a greater need for orientation on the part of organizational members. Under such conditions, members are more likely to look for charismatic leaders and to accept their definitions of the organization's identity and its mission. Organizations that provide services in times of emergency, such as police, fire-fighting or rescue organizations, or emergency units in hospitals, would be additional examples of service organizations t! hat would benefit from charismatic leadership.

Based on the above reasoning, we suggest the following theoretical proposition:

PROPOSITION 3. The emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leaders will be facilitated to the extent that: (a) there is an opportunity for substantial moral involvement on the part of the leader and the followers; (b) performance goals cannot be easily specified and measured; extrinsic rewards cannot be made clearly contingent on individual performance; (c) there are few situational cues, constraints and reinforcers to guide behaviour and provide incentives for specific performance; and (d) exceptional effort, behaviour and sacrifices are required of both the leaders and followers.

We would like to emphasize, however, that our analysis does not rule out the possibility of charismatic leadership in non-exceptional situations. Members maybe alienated from the existing organizational order under routine, but dissatisfying, frustrating, or stress-inducing situations as well. Charismatic leadership may emerge to lead a movement to alleviate such alienating conditions.

CONCLUSION

In this article, we have focused on certain fundamental effects of charismatic leaders on followers. We have argued that these effects are produced by leadership actions that selectively arouse non-conscious motives, implicate the self-concept of the followers, and engage the related motivations for self-expression, self-esteem, self-worth and self-consistency. We have summarized the available evidence and theory concerning charismatic leadership. Hopefully, this summary will help to provide greater insights concerning the charismatic phenomena. We recognize that the last section, which deals with conditions that favour the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership, is speculative. However, we believe such speculation is warranted because it resulted in a testable conclusion and therefore need not be taken on faith alone.

Some scholars have voiced scepticism concerning whether or not leaders can make a difference in organizational performance 23,24,25!. This scepticism reflects the argument that people are biased towards over-attributing to leaders influence on events which are complex and difficult to understand. As a result, leadership in general, and charismatic leadership in particular, could be dismissed as an exaggerated perception on the part of the followers, which does not have strong substantial effects on organizational outcomes, and is therefore not worthy of much attention by students or organizations.

We believe that the evidence for the effects of charismatic leadership is too strong to be dismissed. We have offered a theoretical explanation for these effects. Our assumptions and theoretical position do not contradict existing models of motivation. Rather, they suggest the existence of additional motivational mechanisms without which the transformational effects of charismatic leadership cannot be explained. These mechanisms concern the motive arousal and self-concept effects-engaging of charismatic leaders on followers.

In prior articles, cited throughout this article, we have presented our arguments in the form of testable propositions and have reviewed relevant supporting evidence. Most of these propositions have been empirically tested and supported. The theory presented here also suggests the way in which follower attributes and organizational conditions are implicated in the transformational process that charismatic leaders induce. Thus the theory is a cross-level organizational theory of charismatic leadership which explains how environmental, organizational, behavioural and motivational variables are linked. Hopefully, the theory advanced here will be pruned, modified and extended as a result of future empirical testing.

Several paragraphs and ideas presented here were taken from prior articles authored by House et al. 1!; Shamir et al. 2!; House and Howell 3!; and House and Shamir 4!. These articles are cited throughout this article, where appropriate. The author is especially indebted to three colleagues who have participated in the stream of research on which this article is based. These scholars are Jane M. Howell of the University of Western Ontario, Boas Shamir of the Hebrew University, and W. Donald Spangler of the State University of New York, Binghamton. These scholars have contributed substantially to theoretical development and empirical research in pursuit of a better understanding of charismatic phenomena.

REFERENCES

1. House, R.J., Spangler, W.D. and Woycke, J., "Personality and Charisma in the US Presidency", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36, 1991, pp. 364-86.

2. Shamir, B., House, R.J. and Arthur. M., "The Motivational Effects of Charismatic Leadership", unpublished working paper, Department of Management, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 1992.

3. House, R.J. and Howell, J.M., "Personality and Charisma", unpublished working paper, Department of Management, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 1992.

4. House, R.J. and Shamir, B., "Toward the Integration of Inspirational and Transformational Theories of Leadership", working paper, Reginald Jones Center for Strategic Management, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 1992.

5. Berlew, D.E., "Leadership and Organizational Excitement", in Kolb, D.A., Rubin, I.M. and McIntyre, J.M. (Eds), Organizational Psychology, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1974.

6. Weber, M., The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Free Press, New York, 1947.

7. House, R.J., "A 1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership", in Hunt, J.G. and Larson, L. (Eds), Leadership: The Cutting Edge, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL, 1977, pp. 189-204.

8. Burns, J.M., Leadership, Harper & Row, New York, 1978.

9. Bass, B.M., Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, 1985.

10. Yukl, G.A. and Van Fleet, D.D., "Cross-situational, Multimethod Research and Military Leader Effectiveness", Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 30, 1982, pp. 87-108.

11. Bennis, W. and Nanus, B., Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge, Harper & Row, New York, 1985.

12. Sashkin, M., "The Visionary Leader and Charismatic Leadership", in Conger, J.C. and Kanungo, R.N. (Eds), Charismatic Leadership: The Elusive Factor in Organizational Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1988, pp. 120-60.

13. Conger, J.C. and Kanungo, R.N. , "Theoretical Foundations of Charismatic Leadership", in Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (Eds), Charismatic Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1987.

14. Trice, H.M. and Beyer, J.M., "Charisma and its Routinization in Two Social Movement Organizations", in Staw, B.L., and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1986, pp. 113-64.

15. Tichy, N.M. and Devanna, M.A., The Transformational Leader, Wiley, New York, 1985.

16. Hollander, E.P., Leaders, Oxford University Press, New York, 1964.

17. Fielder, F.E. and Garcia, J.E. New Approaches to Effective Leadership: Cognitive Resources and Organizational Performance, Wiley, New York, 1987.

18. Graen, G. and Cashman, J.F., "A Role-making Model of Leadership in Formal Organizations: A Developmental Approach", in Hunt, J.G. and Larson, L.L. (Eds), Leadership Frontiers, Kent State University Press, Kent, OH, 1975, pp. 143-65.

19. Evans, G., "The Effects of Supervisory Behavior on the Path-goal Relationship", Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 5, 1970, pp. 277-98.

20. House, R.J., "A Path-goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 3, 1971, pp. 321-38.

21. Ashour, A.S., "A Framework for a Cognitive Behavioral Theory of Leader Influence and Effectiveness", Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 30, 1982, pp. 407-30.

22. McClelland, D., Human Motivation, Scott Foresman, Glenwood, IL, 1985.

23. Pfeffer, J., "The Ambiguity of Leadership", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 2, 1977, pp. 104-12.

24. Salancik, G.R. and Pfeffer, J., "Constraints on Administrator Discretion: Limited Influence of Mayors on City Budgets", Urban Affairs Quarterly, Vol. 12, 1977, pp. 475-98.

25. Meindl, J.R., Ehrlich, S.B. and Dukerich, J.M., "The Romance of Leadership", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 1, 1985, pp. 78-102.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.