Concept of Charismatic Leadership: Evolution and Development - Assignment Example

 Concept of Charismatic Leadership: Evolution and Development Introduction Leadership is one of the most prominent features of the managerial circumstances. It is an art of encouraging a group to take steps towards accomplishing a common objective. Leadership is a collective expression of personal qualities and the capability (Gardner et al, 1998, p58). The leader is a person who affects the thoughts, feelings and behaviour of the individuals within their work groups and motivates them working for achievement of a common goal. Throughout the history, leadership remains an important point for interest for the social scientists, theorists and experts. The leadership theories and philosophies evolved from the beginning of the twentieth century and up to present day the experts have identifies several important characteristics that are supposed to be essential parts of the leaders’ personalities. Most of the early theories of leadership focus upon the qualities that renowned between the leaders and their followers however, the approach of modern day theories is different towards leadership concept and the modern theories mostly look towards leadership from different perspectives line as situational factors and ability level (Gardner et al, 1998, p58). There are different approaches to leadership that are presented from time to time by different experts in form of leadership theories (Adair, 1973, p45). The following essay tends to describe the evolutional of different general theories of leadership and specifically aims to trace the evolution of the concept of charismatic leadership. The essay further explores the development of the concept of charismatic leadership over the time and identifies the main characteristic features of the leaders as identified by the advocates of charismatic leadership theory. Theories of Leadership A considerable portion of literature has been devoted to discuss and explore different attributes of leadership. It is revealed that different social scientists have presented the essence of leadership quite differently in their theories. Starting from the Great Man and Trait theory to the transformational or charismatic leadership theories, the expected role and responsibilities of leaders have changed considerably (Gardner et al, 1998, p58). The traditional conception about leadership was focused upon the characteristics and behaviours of the leaders however, along with the passage of time, the theorists and experts started giving importance to the role of followers and the contextual nature of leadership that ultimately changed the nature and expected role of a leader. The classical theories of leadership view leaders as exceptional and extra ordinary people. The Great man theories explain that the leaders are different from the normal people because they are supposed to possess some innate qualities by birth that allows them to lead people. During this time period, the concept of leadership was mainly attached with a male character and the name Great Man theories also show that the male are mostly supposed to be leaders. The Great Man theories were followed by the Trait theories. In the trait theories, the qualities of a leader are given most importance and it is considered that a leader possesses the qualities required to lead in abundance and he is also supposed to produce these qualities continuously. The trait approach basically rose from the Great man theory because like Great Man theory, it also emphasizes upon the characteristics of a leader however this theory is also criticized on the grounds that this approach isolates the leadership traits and affirms that people possessing such qualities should only selected for the positions of managers and leaders in an organizations. This approach is followed in some of the organizations even now including military and commissions (Hamlin, 2005, p25). After the traits theories, the behaviourism theories were evolved mainly because the trait theory failed to provide conclusive results. The behaviourist theories introduced some changed trends in the perception of a leader’s qualities. These theories were less focused on the portrayal of the characteristics of a leader rather these theories are mostly emphasized upon the actions of the leaders. The concept of the style of leadership is presented in this theory that is based on different patterns of behaviours that could be observed in a leader. These theories introduced changed trend in the leadership literature and the practicing managers were also greatly influenced by this school of thought (Hamlin, 2005, p25). In 1960, Douglas McGregor promoted the theory of behaviourism in the classic book “The Human Side of Enterprise”. McGregor realized the importance of relationship between the leaders and the followers and argues that the performances, qualities and output are not the only things that can affects the leadership role but the working relations and coordination between the leaders and the followers also play vital role in determining the level of success of a leader in achieving the common objectives of the organization or work group. The leadership concepts presented by McGregor widely influenced the behaviours of the managers and draw tremendous effects upon their performances (Gardner et al, 1998, p58). In 1964, Robert Blake and Jane Mouton started work on developing managerial grid between the task and the employees from which they meant production and people. They work for the orientation of managers and also focus upon the results of combination of these two extremes (Blake & Mouton, 1964). Their study proposes that team management is the most important issue because the employees and the managers always remain highly concerned about this matter and it is an essential part of the duties of a leader to deliver such leadership role and behaviour that encompasses team management (Gardner et al, 1998, p58). The behaviourist theories were followed by the situational leadership approaches. The presenters of these theories believe that the outcome of leadership activities highly depends upon the situation where it has been exercised. These theories were based on the belief that leader has to face different types of situation and every different situation demands quite different role of a leader that allows the leader to accomplish the goal in that particular environment. For example, some of the work group settings demand a leader to adopt autocratic style whereas in some other situation the leaders are required to more participate in the group activities to foster work group coordination and working relations. (Hamlin, 2005, p25) There are many factors and variables that affect the demand of leadership style of a manager like the situation, the people, the task, the organization, and other environmental factors and variables. These theories also pointed out an important point that within the same organization, there could be requirement of adopting different styles of leadership in order to meet the leadership requirement of that specific level. Thus, a leader has to be flexible to adopt the style and strategies according to the demands of the situation. Some of the important theories presented during the emergence of situational theories include Fiedler's Contingency model, the Hersey-Blanchard model of leadership, Tannenbaum & Schmidt’s leadership continuum and the Adair’s Action-Centered leadership model. (Tannenbaum and Schmidt, 1998, p76) The Fiedler's Contingency model is based upon the belief that managers cannot lead their group or organization by adopting any single way but when the situations are changed within organizations, the leadership requirements and demands also tent to be changed. Thus, in order to cope up with this challenging situation it is essential for the managers to remain contingent towards the factors that possess the potential to affect the situation. The environment and work setting of the organization has the major role to play in determining the demands of the leadership style within the organization. (Fiedler, 1967, p98) Another approach towards the situational contingency theory of leadership is presented in the Hersey-Blanchard leadership model that focuses upon the situational perspective of leadership. The researchers argue that the leadership style of a person is basically formed according to the level and position that he possesses within the organization. It is important that a leader must encompass level of maturity of the group members. The model explains that the task behaviour and the relationship behaviour are the two most influential factors that affect the decision of a leader to adopt a specific leadership style. It means that the task behaviour, work patterns, amount of direction and the socio-emotional support enjoyed by a leader in a group situation which leadership style will be most suitable for the leader. These styles could be democratic, communicative, directive, coaching, delegation and supportive. (Tannenbaum and Schmidt, 1998, p76) Tannenbaum & Schmidt’s leadership continuum is another important approach that explains certain concepts of leadership style in relation with the situations. This theory is based on the fact that the leadership style as well as the follower’s behaviour and level of maturity could not be placed at some specific level because in practice all of these things remain in between different levels. It is not allocate to give a specific level to the relationship, behaviours and leadership styles. Thus, the researchers argue that the leadership style within an organization also keeps on changing in accordance with the prevailing situations. When the managers move from one leadership style from another, they encounter mainly four types of leadership styles including autocratic, persuasive, consultative and democratic (Tannenbaum and Schmidt, 1998, p76). The leadership model presented by John Adair in 1973 is also regarded an important approach towards the leader’s role and responsibilities. Adair put forwards the concept that action is base for the activities of a leader because an action based leaders can successfully accomplish the goals of an organization by getting different jobs done by the teams of the workers and fellow managers and staff. The relationship of the leader and the staff also possesses great importance to assure successful achievement of company goals. He also identified that in order to become an action cantered leader, it is very important that a leader must possess capabilities to perform some specific jobs. For instance, the leader must possess capability to structure the task by directing the job that is to be done. He should also support and review the performances of the individuals that are involved in work with him. He must focus on good coordination among the team members to foster team work. (Adair, 1973, p45) The situational theories were further refined and got the name of contingency theories. These theories are mostly concerned with the identification of the situational variables that can be studies and analyzed to make decision about selecting any particular style of leadership. These theorists believe that it is very important to study the environment thoroughly to determine that which leadership style can best fit in the particular circumstances. The success of a leader highly depends upon the correct prediction and identification of the required leadership style. These theories were followed by the transactional theory that reinforces the importance of leaders and followers relationship. This approach is mainly emphasized upon realizing the importance of leader and followers relations. The theory put forward the concept that leader has to identify the collective benefits and present them in front of the followers in form of a contract that allow the leaders to motive their workers with the help of different attractive offers. The leaders strive to improve the performance level of the employees by offering them reward or recognition in return for their good performances and loyalty with the origination and dedication towards achievement of the mutual goals (Gardner et al, 1998, p58). Charismatic Leadership The concept of charismatic leadership was basically introduced by House in 1976. However, the conception has its roots embedded in the philosophies of Weber (1947). House basically built his conception upon the theoretical frame work divulged by Weber in 1947 in which he propose that the charismatic leaders are those who work in unique manner and their acts have charismatic effects upon the attitude and behaviours of their followers (Weber, 1947, p76). House works to explore the phenomenon of charismatic leadership in details and proposes that the charismatic leaders must possess four important attributes. At first, the charismatic leaders tend to acts as dynamic role models and have the abilities to foster their vision among the followers. The charismatic leaders appear competent to their followers. The viewpoints conveyed by these people are supposed to have strong moral implications and they communicate high exception for performance. According to House (19760, these four qualities add the essence of charisma to the personality of a leader. Though House’ charismatic leadership theory is rooted from the Weber’s philosophy but looking the theory in the context of theoretical development of the leadership theories, it is found that the charismatic leadership theories have their place with the transformational leadership conceptions. The concept of transformational role of the leaders was introduced after the transactional theories. The transformation theories put forward the concept that leaders have to change their role and style of leadership when they witness any change in the performance and behaviour of an organization. It means that the same leader has to be ready for making different type of decisions as per requirement of the situation. The leaders are not required to follow same type of role and leadership style in the changing situations but as the organizations go through a transformational phase, the role of the leaders should also be transformed to meet the demands of the changed situation (House, 1992, p16). House (1976) presents another version of the transformational leadership as he adds the essence of “charisma” in to the leaders’ personality traits. The philosophy presented by House significantly work to support the notion of charismatic leadership in to the transformational leadership theories (House, 1976, p189). The philosophies presented by House were further refined by the theorists in the coming year. Bass (1985) for instance, made significant contributions towards the presentation of the theory of charismatic leadership. Bass focuses upon certain individual considerations of the leaders that ultimately influence the behaviours of the followers and compel them working on the lines of the leader. The charismatic leaders as illustrated by Bass (1985) are supposed to be very powerful, confident and dynamic personalities that have the naturally gifted tendencies and capabilities to effectively communicate with the followers both verbally and nonverbally and influence their acts and behaviours (Bass, 1985, p542). This concept brings a major change about the perception of leadership. This approach has its foundations in different social scientific fields like sociology, psychology and politics. This approach argues that more emphasis should be given to develop leadership qualities within an organization rather just developing a leader. It would be beneficial for the organization when all the employees will have collective responsibilities for leadership and they will be able to think creative for overall good of their environment. This theory increases the sense of responsibility among the individuals motivating them to think about meeting the demands of the work group. There are several issues came across the reading of these theories that remain great topics for debates among the experts. For example, some of the experts still argue that individual aspect of leadership is still preferable and acceptable because it allows better management of work and prevents confusion within an organization regarding distribution of responsibilities (Gardner et al, 1998, p58). Conger and Kanungo (1987) focuses upon the behavioural aspect of charismatic leadership. The theorists argue that the charismatic leadership is determined by the perceptions of the followers regarding their leaders. Thus, they revealed that charisma is an attribution that basically stems from the influence leaders have upon their followers. This aspect of charismatic leadership highlights the communicative function of the leaders and deems it as the determining factors behind the status of the charismatic leaders (Conger and Kanungo, 1987, p637). The notion of charismatic leadership remains an important of focus for the theorist and leaders and to present there are several theories and models presented to identify certain aspects of the charismatic leadership and the transformational role of the charismatic leaders. An important model of organizational management is presented by Hamlin that is called “Hamlin’s Generic Model of Managerial and Leadership Effectiveness. This model present the concept that the organization should be managed by conducting meta analysis of leadership and management behaviours of different prominent organizations because it allows to have look at various positive and negative indications of management and leadership adopted by different organization. The model presented some positive and negative indicator that affects the role of a leader in managing the organization and achieving the goal of the business (Hamlin, 2005, p25). The positive indicators include the effective organization and planning that assures proactive management of the matters of the organization. Moreover, a leader is supposed to be participated and supportive so that has can create a proactive team leadership in the organization. The leader must also possess empowerment and delegation and should have genuine concerns for the people associated with the organizations. He has o look after the interests and developmental needs of the staff of the organization to secure their satisfaction. It is also important for a manager to adopt open and personal management approach that allows inclusive decision making. The leader is also expected to communicate and consult with the team members regularly in order to keep the people informed about each development occurred within the operational boundaries of the organization (Hamlin, 2005, p25). Along with these positive attributes, the model also presented some negative indicators that can contribute towards the failure or mismanagement of an organization. The model explains that if the manager or the leader of the organization show lack of concern and he concentrates less towards different matters related to the staff then he will be marked with ineffective, autocratic and dictatorial style of leadership and management. If the manager tolerates poor performances of the staff and ignore the low standard then the overall productivity and performance of the organization will be affected badly. Furthermore, the manager should not be resistant to new ideas and changes; he should not have a negative approach towards changes and transformational ideas because it closes the door of innovation and creativity within an organization. (Hamlin, 2005, p25) Another important approach towards the leadership concept and model is presented in the Zinger Miller Grass Roots leadership model. This model of leadership was developed on the basis of the results of the research studies conducted by collecting 1871 critical incidents from 450 US and Canadian organizations. After reviewing and analyzing the cases the model is presented that have its origins in the CLIMB strategies model. This model also presented some important attributes and qualities that are necessary in a leader. The model proposes that a leader must have the capability to create a compelling future for the organization. He has to create as well as effectively describe the vision that led all the activities of the organization. He should also effectively manage all the changes occurring in the organization to make sure the successful execution and implementation of the vision. The managers or the leader is also required to be responsive towards the identical needs of the customers and he should also support the efforts of very individual in order to foster team work. He is also responsible to share information with the group members. This approach assumes that the manager or leader should make decision after consulting and discussing with the team members. The organization expressed in this model works in horizontal way and builds personal credibility Conclusion The above discussion reveals that the genre of charismatic leadership basically has its place among the theories of transformational leadership theories because the conception of the charismatic leadership basically stress upon the personality traits of the leaders that work to influence the behaviours and decisions of the followers and allows the charismatic leaders to dynamically act as role model for their adherents. The charismatic leadership concept is rooted from the Marx Weber philosophy of leadership that was presented in theoretical framework by House in 1976. The idea of charismatic leader have been refined by the theorists and to present there have been certain philosophies divulged by the theorists and social scientists to refine and explains the dynamics of charismatic leadership. References Adair, J. (1973) Action-Centred Leadership. New York: McGraw-Hill Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987), toward a behavioural theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12: 637-647 Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press Fiedler (1967), a Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Gardner, William L., & Avolio, Bruce J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23: 32-58 House R J (1992), Charismatic Leadership in Service-producing Organizations, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol 3 No 2, pp5-16 House, R. J. (1976), a theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt. Sc L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge: 189-207. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press Hamlin, R. G. (2005) towards universalistic models of managerial leader effectiveness: a comparative study of recent British and American derived models of leadership Human Resource Development International 8(1) pp. 5-25 Tannenbaum, R. and Schmidt, W. (1998) How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard Business Review 36(2), 95-101, a Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks Centre for Leadership Studies 43 Weber, Max (1947 Max Weber: The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Translated by A. M. Henderson & Talcott Parsons, NY: The Free Press. Read More