What does Weber mean by charismatic authority How and why does he contrast it to bureaucracy - Essay Example

? Introduction Max Weber was a pessimist more or less. He did not have faith that a humanistic type of man or woman could be produced the march of science and rationality during his time at the beginning of the 20th century. Much progress had been made, but he was not at all confident that that progress could raise human beings to the required moral status that was needed to ensure the world would be a livable place. One problem he had was the way current social scientists were analyzing history and social activity. They all seem to think that the world was on a route of progress, hence their evaluation of history was framed from valued, or normative points of views. Weber created the use of "ideal type" to analyze social data and activity such that values could be separated for observations and theorists could make empirically based views. An ideal type became a concept marking regularities of meaningful action. The ideal type model would enable precise definitions for comparison and measurement of social reality. In his analysis of leadership ideal types that have evolved through history, he created three models. These were the legal or bureaucratic leader, the authority leader, and the charismatic leader. This report will concentrate on "charismatic authority" and will contrast it to "bureaucracy". It will view how charismatic authority may contribute to a sociological understanding of power in modern society. Discussion How has the concept of ‘leader’ risen in society and in what way has it became an authority figure? Weber attempted to not make value judgments as he outlined his leadership types. Hence he was able to accept as a fact that the bureaucratic leader existed, alone with the traditional and charismatic ones. Although the route that the leader took to authority may have involved injustice or arbitrary actions, Weber's task was to describe the various types and how they came to be accepted (Titunik 65). The bureaucratic or legal leader represented the impersonal type leader that worked efficiently in such organizations as businesses, schools, and even church hierarchies and hospitals. They were the officials of an organization who ruled not on personal loyalties, but on clear hierarchic chains of command that were organized on systems of intentionally created abstract rules. There were rules of conduct and specified roles were marked out. There were distinct spheres of ownership and staff and staff was paid more or less for skills that were acquired and recognize to operate on the position. One of the problems dealing with bureaucratic leadership was that many times it could be seen as lording over an emotionless 'iron cage' (Weber 181). The traditional leader evolved from a historical patriarch whose position was that of a personal master who ruled over his subjects. He was more or less limited by traditional laws and his rule was held up by faithful followers who had received benefits. It is the charismatic leader whom Weber seems to spend much time on. This particular leader came to power through recognition of his exceptional powers as a hero, as a person who took the ultimate self-sacrifice. His followers are mesmerized before him and had accepted his otherworldly nature. He has exemplary character. He is able to bring meaning into the lives of his follower and he can give them goals and images to internalize and believe in to "transcend their own limited existence" (Conger et al 751). The charismatic leader releases his followers from "custom, law and tradition", even from family responsibilities and, most importantly, from their own conscience (Conger et al 751). Dow sees it as an ideal type and an emotional life-force that "remains forever beyond the reach of bureaucratic domination” (Dow 85). Charismatic leadership directly contrasts bureaucratic leadership. Dow suggests that Weber celebrated ‘charisma as an “emotional life-force” antagonistic to the dreary construction of the iron cage’” (Dow 85). Yet, today they both can be seen operating easily in tantrum. One observer, writing from the Cold War era of the 1950s, saw charismatic leadership falling into the direction of a totalitarian kind of regime where it has become institutionalized into a bureaucratic type of government (Constas). This can be seen in certain governments such as Cuba, typically seen as dictatorships such as countries in Africa, or one could go so far as to say China. However, following Weber's effort, one must try not to evaluate the examples politically in order understand the effect of the charismatic-bureaucratic authority and structure for its effects on its people. If a democratic leader moves its people to war without going through the official routes, this could be seen as an example of the charismatic leader, as in the case of the first President George Bush leading the country into world with Iraq. Then Bush would turn to his leadership role over a vast bureaucratic machine to rule the conduct of war. In our political system, it definitely takes charisma to build up a base of power and financial support. President Obama used charisma to great effect during his presidential election campaign. His campaign represented a historical movement that brought the first black man to the presidency of the United States. Perhaps this is how Weber's view of the charismatic leader could be best understood today. The concept of charismatic leadership figures greatly in the nonviolent movements of Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King to empower their followers with a new meaning in their lives. This new meaning would withstand opposition from external bureaucratic systems of control. The leadership of both of these leaders was able to evolve organizations of bureaucracies that were able to effectively extend an order control over their followers. This method, combining the charisma of the leader with an effective bureaucracy, can also be seen developing in the business world. A notable example would be that of Henry Ford. His followers believed in his vision and ideas of producing cars for the country. His bureaucracy remains with us today in the form of his country. What would a sociological analysis present of Muammar el-Qaddafi, ruler of Libya. Qaddafi is obvious the charismatic leader. Today it is becoming apparent that he does have a rather effective bureaucracy upon which he sits. Although the leader is much demonized today, a sociological view from Weber's insights would have one try to reach credible understandings of his rule. Qaddafi is evidence of much Western complicity in some aspects. He was made and recognized as the head leader of his country by the West. In fact, the West created his country. But it has become apparent that good somber analyses must be taken of his charismatic leadership, if only to understand there are many factors here addressing why his people continue to support him. Conclusion But somber analyses, the kind that Weber promoted, are difficult to come by today in the time of rapid communication techniques created by advances in technology. Charismatic leaders will continue to exist. The world waits to see who will rise amongst the various revolting activities in the Arab world. In the corporate world, studies of such figures as Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and even now, one as young as Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook would probably yield good information on the combination of the two, the charismatic figure with organized bureaucracy. An important question would be in such confines, who checks who? Works Cited Conger, Jay A., Kanungo, Rabindra N. and Menon, Sanjay T. "Charismatic Leadership and Follower Effects." Journal of Organizational Behavior 21.7 (2000): 747-767. Constas, H."Max Weber's Two Conceptions of Bureaucracy." The American Journal of Sociology 64.4 (1958): 400.409 Dow, Thomas E. "An Analysis of Weber's Work on Charisma." The British Journal of Sociology 29.1 (1978): 83-93. Titunik, Regina F. "Max Weber on the Advent of a New Aristocacy." Journal of Politics 59.3 (1997): 680-700 Weber, Max. (2003). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. (1902). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Read More