- Email: [email protected]
Taming charisma for better understanding and greater usefulness
TAMING CHARISMA FOR BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND GREATER USEFULNESS: A RESPONSE TO BEYER Boas Shamir* The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Beyer (1999) puts the LQ Special Issue (volume 10, number 2) and the work it represents under a very cold shower. Her central argument is that the “so called neo-charismatic and transformational leadership paradigms have tamed the original conception of charisma advanced by Weber (1947) and, in the process, diluted its richness and distinctiveness” (p. 308). More specifically, she argues that the “new paradigm” (1) is not really new; (2) is too psychological; (3) is too leader-centered; (4) relies too heavily on follower’s reports of leaders’ behaviors and effects; (5) does not pay enough attention to the causal role of the situation, especially of crisis, in the development of charisma; (6) applies the concept of charisma too broadly thus losing its distinctiveness; (7) is too universalistic in its claims and does not pay sufficient attention to cultural differences in conceptions of leadership; (8) promotes a romantic and heroic view of business leaders; (9) is written in a more promotional than scientifically questioning or analytical vein; and (10) does not pay sufficient attention to the dangers and practical drawbacks of charisma. Beyer’s essay should have a sobering effect on our field, which indeed has not offered a totally new paradigm, and is often guilty of over-enthusiasm and overgeneralizations. Her critique also contains many useful suggestions for further research in this field, among them: to pay more attention to the situation not only as a moderator, but also as a causal factor; to be more sensitive to cultural differences and the cultural relativity of the leadership concepts articulated by the “new paradigm” to pay more attention to the content of the leader’s vision; to examine the relationship between the leader’s vision and objective measures of performance at
*Direct all correspondence to: Boas Shamir, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 51905, Israel; e-mail: [email protected]. Leadership Quarterly, 10(4), 555–562. Copyright 1999 by Elsevier Science Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 1048-9843
556
LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 4 1999
the individual and system level; to conduct more qualitative and longitudinal studies; and to distinguish between types of leaders such as innovative leaders and maintenance leaders. To do full justice to both Beyer’s criticism and its targets, her comments should be examined in detail, one-by-one, in a manner that is sensitive to differences among the theories she criticizes because some of her concerns have already been addressed by several theorists and researchers. Such an approach, however, cannot be undertaken within the framework of this short rejoinder. I will therefor adopt Beyer’s broad-brush approach, and, in the limited space provided here, address Beyer’s main argument that the new theories of charismatic and transformational leadership have tamed and diluted the original concept of charisma and her implied conclusion that we should re-adopt Weber’s sociological conception of charisma as articulated and demonstrated by Trice and Beyer (1986).
SOCIOLOGICAL VS. PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH? Beyer is correct in observing that recent writings on charismatic and transformational leadership focus on the relationship between the leader and the led, and emphasize the social psychological rather than the sociological aspects of the phenomenon. However, there is a reason for such an approach: the sociological theories of charisma left unexplained an important component of the phenomenon, namely “What is it in the charismatic that appeals to people, that makes them willing to follow a charismatic leader, to accept his (or her) call to give up some of their resources, wealth, time, energy or existing social bonds and commitments for the implementation of his (or her) vision?” (Eisenstadt, 1968, p. xxii). Weber (1947) was interested in social order and social change. He saw societal order as explained by traditional and rational-legal bases of authority, and introduced the leader’s charisma as a third base of authority to explain how and why people are willing to follow a leader who intends to change the normative order of society. However, Weber did not provide a satisfactory psychological explanation for the charismatic phenomenon. He merely claimed that the attribution of special qualities to the leader enables followers to trust the leader sufficiently to overcome their fear of change and resistance to change. Some of Weber’s interpreters, notably sociologists Shils (1965) and Eisenstadt (1968), have attempted to complete Weber’s explanation in this regard. They did so by referring to the very abstract concept of “symbolic center,” which is defined as the center of the order of symbols, values, and beliefs that govern the society (Shils, 1965). This center consists “in the point or points in society where its leading ideas come together with its leading institutions to create an arena in which the events that most vitally affect its members’ lives take place” (Geertz, 1977, p. 151). Charisma, according to this explanation, is a function of members’ need for order and meaning, and the perceived ability of the leader to provide such order and meaning. “The charismatic quality of an individual as perceived by others, or himself, lies in what is thought to be his connection with some very central feature of man’s existence and the cosmos in which he lives” (Shils, 1965, p. 201). This explanation left the phenomenon in a cloud of mystery. Also, it seemed to
Taming Charisma
557
apply better to the religious and spiritual spheres than to situations like the military, business organizations, and present-day political institutions in Western societies (Shamir, 1991). Pioneering theorists of the neo-charismatic genre, such as House (1977), Burns (1978), Bass (1985), and Conger and Kanungo (1988) have deliberately tried to disperse this cloud of mystery and broaden the concept’s applicability. In so doing, they have relied on social psychological theories from the fields of motivation, person-perception, and moral development. Subsequent theories (e.g., Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993) have followed this route. Emphasis on the relationship between the leader and the led and on social psychological processes has perhaps resulted in some neglect of the sociological aspects, primarily the causal role of the situation and the effects of charismatic or transformational leadership on the structure and normative order of total systems. According to Beyer, “This neglect of system-wide change lies at the crux of the difference between psychological and sociological conceptions of charisma” (p. 312). The sociological and psychological approaches to charisma, however, should not be seen as contradictory, but rather as complementary. It is indeed time to reconnect the psychological processes hypothesized and, to some extent, demonstrated empirically by “neo charismatic” researchers to the broader social phenomena studied by sociologists. In doing so, however, we should be careful not to give these sociological aspects a definitive status, as Beyer recommends we do. For instance, following Weber, Beyer sees crisis as a necessary element in the definition of charisma. Several studies raise questions about this issue (Shamir & Howell, 1999). It is interesting to note in this regard that Beyer cites Willner’s (1984) study of political leaders several times, but fails to mention one of the major findings of that study, that crisis was not a necessary condition for the emergence of charismatic political leaders. It is also advisable not to limit ourselves unnecessarily by making system-wide changes a necessary component of the definition. Can we really say that Jim Jones and David Koresh, for example, were not charismatic leaders just because they “only” had fundamental effects on their followers and failed to introduce radical system-wide changes? Psychological effects should not be so easily dismissed. If a leader can provide meaning to people’s life, enable them to maintain and enhance their self-worth and self-esteem, empower them, or conversely create dependency, blind obedience, or misery, these effects deserve attention in their own right, regardless of their implications for the social system. In addition, Beyer accuses the “new paradigm” of adherence to “the same old idea that certain kinds of leaders can change followers’ attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, and in this way, induce improved organizational performance” (p. 309). What is wrong with that? Not every old idea is wrong. The theories included in the “new paradigm” are indeed guilty of sharing with older theories the assumption that psychological processes at least partially mediate the impact of leadership on organizational performance. Older theories, however, even those that were psychological in their focus (e.g., Fiedler, 1967), did not provide a good explanation for the leader’s influence process. Perhaps the main contribution of the newer theories, for which they should be lauded, rather than attacked, lies in developing better explanations for this crucial process.
558
LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 4 1999
LEADERSHIP IS A LEADER-CENTERED PHENOMENON This issue is closely related to another point raised by Beyer, which is that the new paradigm explanations are too leader-centered. She advocates a conception of charisma “as a social process and emergent social structure that encompasses more than the leadership process” (p. 326). This is a legitimate viewpoint, but so is the choice of some of us to focus on the study of the leadership process and the contribution of leaders to social and organizational processes. Beyer writes, “it makes no sense to assume that all or even most of people’s behaviors are caused by something some kind of leader does” (p. 311). This is an unfair criticism because none of us makes such an assumption. Neo-charismatic and transformational leadership theories share the view that leadership is an interactive process. They view the outcomes of the process as determined by much more than the characteristics, abilities, and behaviors of leaders. They recognize that followers’ attribution, projection, transference, romanticization and other perceptual and social construction processes often contribute to the emergence of leaders and the outcomes of the leadership process. Furthermore, many of them would probably agree that leadership is not always necessary or important and that collective action, as well as collective achievements and system changes, may not always require leadership. We do assume that leadership does play an important role in some situations. We also assume, at least implicitly, that the term “leadership” is useful only in instances characterized by asymmetrical influence processes, when an individual or a small number of individuals exert disproportionate influence on a larger collectivity (Shamir, 1999). This is not a romantic or “leader-centered” view of leadership in the sense of exaggerating the role of leaders, but it reserves the term leadership to processes of disproportionate social influence in which the party that exerts greater influence on others (the leader) can be identified. We should therefor recognize that leadership, in this limited respect, is a leader-centered phenomenon, and feel no need to apologize for that. In fact, the concept of charisma that Beyer advocates romanticizes the role of leader to a greater extent than most of the neo-charismatic theories. Within her definition of charisma “an extraordinarily gifted person” is a necessary component of the phenomenon. Whether she can rely on Weber (1947) for that is arguable because it is not clear whether Weber’s concept of charisma implied the actual presence of an extraordinarily gifted person or just to the attribution of exceptional qualities to the leader by his or her followers. In any event, the neo-charismatic theories do not claim that to have charismatic or transformational effects, the leader should have the gift of god or other extraordinary or super-human qualities. Some of them view the idealization of the leader by followers as one component of the phenomenon, not necessarily the most important one (e.g., Bass & Avolio, 1994). Others do not even regard the idealization of the leader as a necessary component of the charismatic process, at least not in close charismatic relations (Shamir, 1995).
BACK TO WEBER? The terms “unusual,” “exceptional,” “extraordinary,” and “rare” are repeated many times in Beyer’s portrayal of the charismatic phenomenon. “Clearly, according to
Taming Charisma
559
Weber’s conception, charisma was a rare phenomenon, and a leader must have truly exceptional personal qualities to engender charisma. The new paradigm seems to assume that charisma may be a much more common phenomenon” (p. 314). “Because the new paradigm of leadership lacks a full incorporation of many of Weber’s seminal ideas, it seems to have tamed the whole concept of charisma to make it more common and less extraordinary” (p. 316). In addition, charisma and radical change are strongly interrelated in the Weberian framework advanced by Beyer. Charisma is a relatively short-lived phenomenon. All charisma has to be routinized and institutionalized eventually (Trice & Beyer, 1986). Organizational rules and cultural norms must replace the charisma of the leader to stabilize the system after the radical transformation. It is legitimate to want to reserve the term charisma to rare and exceptional cases of radical change. Beyer aptly describes the advantages of such an approach. However, it is also legitimate to want to understand more common processes. From this point of view, the “taming” of charisma may be seen as an advantage. Neocharismatic and transformational leadership theories have enabled us to see that there are charismatic opportunities and manifestations in more common situations, such as business organizations, military units, public service organizations, and ongoing political institutions. By arguing and demonstrating that the exceptional phenomena to which Beyer refers may be extreme manifestations of more common processes, the new theories have perhaps diluted the original concept of charisma while broadening its potential application and usefulness. As Beyer writes, “there is, of course, no verifiably right or wrong way to define a concept” (p. 325). We should therefore not argue about definitions or terms. Perhaps the term charisma should be reserved to rare and exceptional cases as Beyer suggests. Beyer also advocates the criterion of usefulness for the evaluation of theories. Therefore, the new theories should not be evaluated according to their faithfulness to the original concept, but rather according to their contribution to the understanding of important processes. From this point of view, the new theories’ wide applicability increases their potential usefulness relative to Weber’s old theory. Furthermore, from a sociological viewpoint, Weber’s theory may be viewed as historically situated. The portrayal of charisma as exceptional and rare may reflect the fact that changes in Weber’s times occurred after long periods of relative stability. Beyer writes: “When a theory provides such insights, researchers should be expected to provides strong justifications for modifying it” (p. 310). One such justification is that the world has changed. The Weberian concept of charisma as characterizing infrequent periods of radical change was appropriate for the explanation of change in more stable times. For present-day organizations, change is constant. Therefore, Weber’s concept of charisma as a transient phenomenon occurring against the background of long periods of order and stability may no longer be useful. A “new paradigm” may be required.
THEORETICAL CHALLENGES The development of such a new paradigm poses difficult theoretical challenges. On the one hand, as change becomes a permanent feature of organizational life rather
560
LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 4 1999
than an infrequent occurrence, elements of charisma, (an inspiring vision, containment of anxiety, provision of meaning, a sense of control, and strong trusting relationships between leaders and members) may become increasingly necessary for effective organizational adaptation and action. In other words, because of increased ambiguity and the weakening of permanent organizational structures, permanent organizational membership, and stable organizational cultures, the need for charisma in the sense of meaning-providing and safety-providing leadership grows. On the other hand, in the “post-bureaucratic” age of flexible and “boundaryless” organizations, the institutionalization of charisma becomes increasingly difficult. How can charisma be institutionalized if it cannot be replaced by a stable bureaucratic or normative order? Increasingly, organizational action “needs to be viewed in terms of clusters of activity sets whose membership, composition, ownership, and goals are constantly changing, and in which projects rather than positions are central. . . . Many of the new activity sets are only minimally institutionalized. They do not exist or persist irrespective of the people occupying them (Kanter, Stein, & Jick, 1991, p. 13). We therefore need a concept of charismatic leadership for our times: neither temporary and exceptional nor liable to institutionalization processes. Such a concept of leadership may be less dramatic or romantic than the original concept of charisma. It does not have to include the perception of the leader as extraordinary or the attribution of super-human qualities to the leader. As acknowledged above, charisma may not even be an appropriate term for such leadership. Yet we need a model of leadership that can explain how leaders may perform necessary integrative functions in flexible and “boundaryless” organizations, offer answers to “why” questions raised by organizational members and other participants, increase participants’ internal commitment, and provide the psychological safety needed in times of change. All of this without much support from permanent structures, positionbased sources of power, stable organizational cultures or other “substitutes.” Furthermore, we need a model that can explain how leaders may be able to balance or synthesize the seemingly contradictory role requirements of providing stability, which is needed for integration, learning, and safety, and facilitating change, which is needed for adaptation to the environment. In other words, a model that can account simultaneously for the potential roles of leaders as both agents of change and “centers of gravity” in organizations characterized by shifting boundaries, changing membership, and flexible structures (Shamir, 1999). These dilemmas pose practical challenges for leaders and theoretical challenges for leadership scholars. The theories Beyer criticizes have not yet provided a “new paradigm” along these lines, but in shifting the focus from both Weber’s exceptional case theory and the simplified models of organizational leadership that had been popular prior to their introduction, they have at least moved the field in the right direction.
CONCLUSION It can be claimed that neo-charismatic and transformational leadership theories have had a modest charismatic effect on the field of leadership studies, as evidenced, for instance, by the hundreds of masters theses and doctoral dissertations written
Taming Charisma
561
on such leadership in the last fifteen years. In fact, what happened in the leadership field is not very different from Beyer’s portrayal of the charismatic phenomenon. The field was in crisis, and there was a growing dissatisfaction with the status quo (e.g., McCall & Lombardo, 1978; Miner, 1975). Along came leaders, primarily House (1977), Burns (1978), Bass (1985), and Conger and Kanungo (1988), who offered a radical vision. Like all charismatic visions, their visions included the exaggerated promise of a totally “new paradigm.” As often happens with charismatic phenomena, the leaders recruited many followers and awakened their enthusiasm, but some over-enthusiasm and, perhaps, some blindness have accompanied these effects to the limitations of the new approach. Criticisms such as Beyer’s (and Yukl’s, 1999) remind us of these limitations. With hope and with due respect to Weber’s theory to which we all owe so much, these reminders will help us move forwards rather than backwards. So that Beyer’s cold shower will have an invigorating rather than desire-killing effect on the field, it should also be recognized that, as becomes very clear in the conclusion of her essay, many of her critical comments are not directed specifically at the theories and studies she criticizes. Rather, they reflect a more general skepticism about “the psychological paradigm” and the search for law-like, general causes of behavior. “It is possible,” she writes, “that the phenomenon of leadership is too situation-specific to yield the kinds of generalizations that researchers are seeking” (p. 325) In such comments, Beyer expresses a well-known philosophy of science viewpoint, which does not apply only to psychology but also to sociology and other disciplines. This viewpoint rejects positivistic attempts to make “unwarranted claims about abstract traits or universal processes” (p. 325). It is also possible, however, to hold a view of social science that accepts both context-specific studies of the type recommended by Beyer, and modest attempts to generalize beyond a specific context of the type exemplified by neo-charismatic and transformational leadership theories as legitimate and potentially fruitful ways to increase understanding of social processes. This response was written from such a viewpoint. Its purpose was to argue that from this point of view, Beyer’s comments do not necessitate a rejection of the new theories of leadership represented in the special issues of LQ, and certainly not a regression to the original Weberian concept of charisma.
REFERENCES Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press. Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Beyer, J. (1999). Taming and promoting charisma to change organizations. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 307–330. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). Behavioral dimensions of charismatic leadership. In J. A. Conger and R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 78–97). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
562
LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 4 1999
Eisenstadt, S .N. (1968). Max Weber: On charisma and institution building. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Geertz, C. (1977). Centers, kings and charisma: Reflections on the symbolics of power. In J. Ben-David & T. N. Clark (Eds.), Culture and its creators (pp. 150–171). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. ). Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press. Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A., & Jick, T. D. (1991). The challenge of organizational change: How companies experience it and leaders guide it. New York: The Free Press. McCall, M. W., Jr., & Lombardo, M. M. (1978). Leadership: Where else can we go? Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Miner, J. B. (1975). The uncertain future of the leadership concept: An overview. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.). Leadership frontiers (pp. 197–208). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. Shamir, B. (1991). The charismatic relationship: Alternative explanations and predictions. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 81–104. Shamir, B. (1995). Social distance and charisma: Theoretical notes and an exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 19–47. Shamir, B. (1999). Leadership in boundaryless organizations: Disposable or indispensable? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 49–71. 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. A. (1999). Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 257–283. Shils, E. A. (1965). Charisma, order and status. American Sociological Review, 30, 199–213. Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1986). Charisma and routinization in two social movement organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (vol. 8; pp. 113–164). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons, Eds. & Trans.). New York: Free Press. Willner, A. R. (1984). The spellbinders: Charismatic political leadership. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Yukl, F. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285–305.
Beyer (1999) puts the LQ Special Issue (volume 10, number 2) and the work it represents under a very cold shower. Her central argument is that the “so called neo-charismatic and transformational leadership paradigms have tamed the original conception of charisma advanced by Weber (1947) and, in the process, diluted its richness and distinctiveness” (p. 308). More specifically, she argues that the “new paradigm” (1) is not really new; (2) is too psychological; (3) is too leader-centered; (4) relies too heavily on follower’s reports of leaders’ behaviors and effects; (5) does not pay enough attention to the causal role of the situation, especially of crisis, in the development of charisma; (6) applies the concept of charisma too broadly thus losing its distinctiveness; (7) is too universalistic in its claims and does not pay sufficient attention to cultural differences in conceptions of leadership; (8) promotes a romantic and heroic view of business leaders; (9) is written in a more promotional than scientifically questioning or analytical vein; and (10) does not pay sufficient attention to the dangers and practical drawbacks of charisma. Beyer’s essay should have a sobering effect on our field, which indeed has not offered a totally new paradigm, and is often guilty of over-enthusiasm and overgeneralizations. Her critique also contains many useful suggestions for further research in this field, among them: to pay more attention to the situation not only as a moderator, but also as a causal factor; to be more sensitive to cultural differences and the cultural relativity of the leadership concepts articulated by the “new paradigm” to pay more attention to the content of the leader’s vision; to examine the relationship between the leader’s vision and objective measures of performance at
*Direct all correspondence to: Boas Shamir, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 51905, Israel; e-mail: [email protected]. Leadership Quarterly, 10(4), 555–562. Copyright 1999 by Elsevier Science Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 1048-9843
556
LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 4 1999
the individual and system level; to conduct more qualitative and longitudinal studies; and to distinguish between types of leaders such as innovative leaders and maintenance leaders. To do full justice to both Beyer’s criticism and its targets, her comments should be examined in detail, one-by-one, in a manner that is sensitive to differences among the theories she criticizes because some of her concerns have already been addressed by several theorists and researchers. Such an approach, however, cannot be undertaken within the framework of this short rejoinder. I will therefor adopt Beyer’s broad-brush approach, and, in the limited space provided here, address Beyer’s main argument that the new theories of charismatic and transformational leadership have tamed and diluted the original concept of charisma and her implied conclusion that we should re-adopt Weber’s sociological conception of charisma as articulated and demonstrated by Trice and Beyer (1986).
SOCIOLOGICAL VS. PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH? Beyer is correct in observing that recent writings on charismatic and transformational leadership focus on the relationship between the leader and the led, and emphasize the social psychological rather than the sociological aspects of the phenomenon. However, there is a reason for such an approach: the sociological theories of charisma left unexplained an important component of the phenomenon, namely “What is it in the charismatic that appeals to people, that makes them willing to follow a charismatic leader, to accept his (or her) call to give up some of their resources, wealth, time, energy or existing social bonds and commitments for the implementation of his (or her) vision?” (Eisenstadt, 1968, p. xxii). Weber (1947) was interested in social order and social change. He saw societal order as explained by traditional and rational-legal bases of authority, and introduced the leader’s charisma as a third base of authority to explain how and why people are willing to follow a leader who intends to change the normative order of society. However, Weber did not provide a satisfactory psychological explanation for the charismatic phenomenon. He merely claimed that the attribution of special qualities to the leader enables followers to trust the leader sufficiently to overcome their fear of change and resistance to change. Some of Weber’s interpreters, notably sociologists Shils (1965) and Eisenstadt (1968), have attempted to complete Weber’s explanation in this regard. They did so by referring to the very abstract concept of “symbolic center,” which is defined as the center of the order of symbols, values, and beliefs that govern the society (Shils, 1965). This center consists “in the point or points in society where its leading ideas come together with its leading institutions to create an arena in which the events that most vitally affect its members’ lives take place” (Geertz, 1977, p. 151). Charisma, according to this explanation, is a function of members’ need for order and meaning, and the perceived ability of the leader to provide such order and meaning. “The charismatic quality of an individual as perceived by others, or himself, lies in what is thought to be his connection with some very central feature of man’s existence and the cosmos in which he lives” (Shils, 1965, p. 201). This explanation left the phenomenon in a cloud of mystery. Also, it seemed to
Taming Charisma
557
apply better to the religious and spiritual spheres than to situations like the military, business organizations, and present-day political institutions in Western societies (Shamir, 1991). Pioneering theorists of the neo-charismatic genre, such as House (1977), Burns (1978), Bass (1985), and Conger and Kanungo (1988) have deliberately tried to disperse this cloud of mystery and broaden the concept’s applicability. In so doing, they have relied on social psychological theories from the fields of motivation, person-perception, and moral development. Subsequent theories (e.g., Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993) have followed this route. Emphasis on the relationship between the leader and the led and on social psychological processes has perhaps resulted in some neglect of the sociological aspects, primarily the causal role of the situation and the effects of charismatic or transformational leadership on the structure and normative order of total systems. According to Beyer, “This neglect of system-wide change lies at the crux of the difference between psychological and sociological conceptions of charisma” (p. 312). The sociological and psychological approaches to charisma, however, should not be seen as contradictory, but rather as complementary. It is indeed time to reconnect the psychological processes hypothesized and, to some extent, demonstrated empirically by “neo charismatic” researchers to the broader social phenomena studied by sociologists. In doing so, however, we should be careful not to give these sociological aspects a definitive status, as Beyer recommends we do. For instance, following Weber, Beyer sees crisis as a necessary element in the definition of charisma. Several studies raise questions about this issue (Shamir & Howell, 1999). It is interesting to note in this regard that Beyer cites Willner’s (1984) study of political leaders several times, but fails to mention one of the major findings of that study, that crisis was not a necessary condition for the emergence of charismatic political leaders. It is also advisable not to limit ourselves unnecessarily by making system-wide changes a necessary component of the definition. Can we really say that Jim Jones and David Koresh, for example, were not charismatic leaders just because they “only” had fundamental effects on their followers and failed to introduce radical system-wide changes? Psychological effects should not be so easily dismissed. If a leader can provide meaning to people’s life, enable them to maintain and enhance their self-worth and self-esteem, empower them, or conversely create dependency, blind obedience, or misery, these effects deserve attention in their own right, regardless of their implications for the social system. In addition, Beyer accuses the “new paradigm” of adherence to “the same old idea that certain kinds of leaders can change followers’ attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, and in this way, induce improved organizational performance” (p. 309). What is wrong with that? Not every old idea is wrong. The theories included in the “new paradigm” are indeed guilty of sharing with older theories the assumption that psychological processes at least partially mediate the impact of leadership on organizational performance. Older theories, however, even those that were psychological in their focus (e.g., Fiedler, 1967), did not provide a good explanation for the leader’s influence process. Perhaps the main contribution of the newer theories, for which they should be lauded, rather than attacked, lies in developing better explanations for this crucial process.
558
LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 4 1999
LEADERSHIP IS A LEADER-CENTERED PHENOMENON This issue is closely related to another point raised by Beyer, which is that the new paradigm explanations are too leader-centered. She advocates a conception of charisma “as a social process and emergent social structure that encompasses more than the leadership process” (p. 326). This is a legitimate viewpoint, but so is the choice of some of us to focus on the study of the leadership process and the contribution of leaders to social and organizational processes. Beyer writes, “it makes no sense to assume that all or even most of people’s behaviors are caused by something some kind of leader does” (p. 311). This is an unfair criticism because none of us makes such an assumption. Neo-charismatic and transformational leadership theories share the view that leadership is an interactive process. They view the outcomes of the process as determined by much more than the characteristics, abilities, and behaviors of leaders. They recognize that followers’ attribution, projection, transference, romanticization and other perceptual and social construction processes often contribute to the emergence of leaders and the outcomes of the leadership process. Furthermore, many of them would probably agree that leadership is not always necessary or important and that collective action, as well as collective achievements and system changes, may not always require leadership. We do assume that leadership does play an important role in some situations. We also assume, at least implicitly, that the term “leadership” is useful only in instances characterized by asymmetrical influence processes, when an individual or a small number of individuals exert disproportionate influence on a larger collectivity (Shamir, 1999). This is not a romantic or “leader-centered” view of leadership in the sense of exaggerating the role of leaders, but it reserves the term leadership to processes of disproportionate social influence in which the party that exerts greater influence on others (the leader) can be identified. We should therefor recognize that leadership, in this limited respect, is a leader-centered phenomenon, and feel no need to apologize for that. In fact, the concept of charisma that Beyer advocates romanticizes the role of leader to a greater extent than most of the neo-charismatic theories. Within her definition of charisma “an extraordinarily gifted person” is a necessary component of the phenomenon. Whether she can rely on Weber (1947) for that is arguable because it is not clear whether Weber’s concept of charisma implied the actual presence of an extraordinarily gifted person or just to the attribution of exceptional qualities to the leader by his or her followers. In any event, the neo-charismatic theories do not claim that to have charismatic or transformational effects, the leader should have the gift of god or other extraordinary or super-human qualities. Some of them view the idealization of the leader by followers as one component of the phenomenon, not necessarily the most important one (e.g., Bass & Avolio, 1994). Others do not even regard the idealization of the leader as a necessary component of the charismatic process, at least not in close charismatic relations (Shamir, 1995).
BACK TO WEBER? The terms “unusual,” “exceptional,” “extraordinary,” and “rare” are repeated many times in Beyer’s portrayal of the charismatic phenomenon. “Clearly, according to
Taming Charisma
559
Weber’s conception, charisma was a rare phenomenon, and a leader must have truly exceptional personal qualities to engender charisma. The new paradigm seems to assume that charisma may be a much more common phenomenon” (p. 314). “Because the new paradigm of leadership lacks a full incorporation of many of Weber’s seminal ideas, it seems to have tamed the whole concept of charisma to make it more common and less extraordinary” (p. 316). In addition, charisma and radical change are strongly interrelated in the Weberian framework advanced by Beyer. Charisma is a relatively short-lived phenomenon. All charisma has to be routinized and institutionalized eventually (Trice & Beyer, 1986). Organizational rules and cultural norms must replace the charisma of the leader to stabilize the system after the radical transformation. It is legitimate to want to reserve the term charisma to rare and exceptional cases of radical change. Beyer aptly describes the advantages of such an approach. However, it is also legitimate to want to understand more common processes. From this point of view, the “taming” of charisma may be seen as an advantage. Neocharismatic and transformational leadership theories have enabled us to see that there are charismatic opportunities and manifestations in more common situations, such as business organizations, military units, public service organizations, and ongoing political institutions. By arguing and demonstrating that the exceptional phenomena to which Beyer refers may be extreme manifestations of more common processes, the new theories have perhaps diluted the original concept of charisma while broadening its potential application and usefulness. As Beyer writes, “there is, of course, no verifiably right or wrong way to define a concept” (p. 325). We should therefore not argue about definitions or terms. Perhaps the term charisma should be reserved to rare and exceptional cases as Beyer suggests. Beyer also advocates the criterion of usefulness for the evaluation of theories. Therefore, the new theories should not be evaluated according to their faithfulness to the original concept, but rather according to their contribution to the understanding of important processes. From this point of view, the new theories’ wide applicability increases their potential usefulness relative to Weber’s old theory. Furthermore, from a sociological viewpoint, Weber’s theory may be viewed as historically situated. The portrayal of charisma as exceptional and rare may reflect the fact that changes in Weber’s times occurred after long periods of relative stability. Beyer writes: “When a theory provides such insights, researchers should be expected to provides strong justifications for modifying it” (p. 310). One such justification is that the world has changed. The Weberian concept of charisma as characterizing infrequent periods of radical change was appropriate for the explanation of change in more stable times. For present-day organizations, change is constant. Therefore, Weber’s concept of charisma as a transient phenomenon occurring against the background of long periods of order and stability may no longer be useful. A “new paradigm” may be required.
THEORETICAL CHALLENGES The development of such a new paradigm poses difficult theoretical challenges. On the one hand, as change becomes a permanent feature of organizational life rather
560
LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 4 1999
than an infrequent occurrence, elements of charisma, (an inspiring vision, containment of anxiety, provision of meaning, a sense of control, and strong trusting relationships between leaders and members) may become increasingly necessary for effective organizational adaptation and action. In other words, because of increased ambiguity and the weakening of permanent organizational structures, permanent organizational membership, and stable organizational cultures, the need for charisma in the sense of meaning-providing and safety-providing leadership grows. On the other hand, in the “post-bureaucratic” age of flexible and “boundaryless” organizations, the institutionalization of charisma becomes increasingly difficult. How can charisma be institutionalized if it cannot be replaced by a stable bureaucratic or normative order? Increasingly, organizational action “needs to be viewed in terms of clusters of activity sets whose membership, composition, ownership, and goals are constantly changing, and in which projects rather than positions are central. . . . Many of the new activity sets are only minimally institutionalized. They do not exist or persist irrespective of the people occupying them (Kanter, Stein, & Jick, 1991, p. 13). We therefore need a concept of charismatic leadership for our times: neither temporary and exceptional nor liable to institutionalization processes. Such a concept of leadership may be less dramatic or romantic than the original concept of charisma. It does not have to include the perception of the leader as extraordinary or the attribution of super-human qualities to the leader. As acknowledged above, charisma may not even be an appropriate term for such leadership. Yet we need a model of leadership that can explain how leaders may perform necessary integrative functions in flexible and “boundaryless” organizations, offer answers to “why” questions raised by organizational members and other participants, increase participants’ internal commitment, and provide the psychological safety needed in times of change. All of this without much support from permanent structures, positionbased sources of power, stable organizational cultures or other “substitutes.” Furthermore, we need a model that can explain how leaders may be able to balance or synthesize the seemingly contradictory role requirements of providing stability, which is needed for integration, learning, and safety, and facilitating change, which is needed for adaptation to the environment. In other words, a model that can account simultaneously for the potential roles of leaders as both agents of change and “centers of gravity” in organizations characterized by shifting boundaries, changing membership, and flexible structures (Shamir, 1999). These dilemmas pose practical challenges for leaders and theoretical challenges for leadership scholars. The theories Beyer criticizes have not yet provided a “new paradigm” along these lines, but in shifting the focus from both Weber’s exceptional case theory and the simplified models of organizational leadership that had been popular prior to their introduction, they have at least moved the field in the right direction.
CONCLUSION It can be claimed that neo-charismatic and transformational leadership theories have had a modest charismatic effect on the field of leadership studies, as evidenced, for instance, by the hundreds of masters theses and doctoral dissertations written
Taming Charisma
561
on such leadership in the last fifteen years. In fact, what happened in the leadership field is not very different from Beyer’s portrayal of the charismatic phenomenon. The field was in crisis, and there was a growing dissatisfaction with the status quo (e.g., McCall & Lombardo, 1978; Miner, 1975). Along came leaders, primarily House (1977), Burns (1978), Bass (1985), and Conger and Kanungo (1988), who offered a radical vision. Like all charismatic visions, their visions included the exaggerated promise of a totally “new paradigm.” As often happens with charismatic phenomena, the leaders recruited many followers and awakened their enthusiasm, but some over-enthusiasm and, perhaps, some blindness have accompanied these effects to the limitations of the new approach. Criticisms such as Beyer’s (and Yukl’s, 1999) remind us of these limitations. With hope and with due respect to Weber’s theory to which we all owe so much, these reminders will help us move forwards rather than backwards. So that Beyer’s cold shower will have an invigorating rather than desire-killing effect on the field, it should also be recognized that, as becomes very clear in the conclusion of her essay, many of her critical comments are not directed specifically at the theories and studies she criticizes. Rather, they reflect a more general skepticism about “the psychological paradigm” and the search for law-like, general causes of behavior. “It is possible,” she writes, “that the phenomenon of leadership is too situation-specific to yield the kinds of generalizations that researchers are seeking” (p. 325) In such comments, Beyer expresses a well-known philosophy of science viewpoint, which does not apply only to psychology but also to sociology and other disciplines. This viewpoint rejects positivistic attempts to make “unwarranted claims about abstract traits or universal processes” (p. 325). It is also possible, however, to hold a view of social science that accepts both context-specific studies of the type recommended by Beyer, and modest attempts to generalize beyond a specific context of the type exemplified by neo-charismatic and transformational leadership theories as legitimate and potentially fruitful ways to increase understanding of social processes. This response was written from such a viewpoint. Its purpose was to argue that from this point of view, Beyer’s comments do not necessitate a rejection of the new theories of leadership represented in the special issues of LQ, and certainly not a regression to the original Weberian concept of charisma.
REFERENCES Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press. Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Beyer, J. (1999). Taming and promoting charisma to change organizations. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 307–330. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). Behavioral dimensions of charismatic leadership. In J. A. Conger and R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 78–97). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
562
LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 10 No. 4 1999
Eisenstadt, S .N. (1968). Max Weber: On charisma and institution building. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Geertz, C. (1977). Centers, kings and charisma: Reflections on the symbolics of power. In J. Ben-David & T. N. Clark (Eds.), Culture and its creators (pp. 150–171). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. ). Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press. Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A., & Jick, T. D. (1991). The challenge of organizational change: How companies experience it and leaders guide it. New York: The Free Press. McCall, M. W., Jr., & Lombardo, M. M. (1978). Leadership: Where else can we go? Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Miner, J. B. (1975). The uncertain future of the leadership concept: An overview. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.). Leadership frontiers (pp. 197–208). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. Shamir, B. (1991). The charismatic relationship: Alternative explanations and predictions. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 81–104. Shamir, B. (1995). Social distance and charisma: Theoretical notes and an exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 19–47. Shamir, B. (1999). Leadership in boundaryless organizations: Disposable or indispensable? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 49–71. 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. A. (1999). Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 257–283. Shils, E. A. (1965). Charisma, order and status. American Sociological Review, 30, 199–213. Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1986). Charisma and routinization in two social movement organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (vol. 8; pp. 113–164). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons, Eds. & Trans.). New York: Free Press. Willner, A. R. (1984). The spellbinders: Charismatic political leadership. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Yukl, F. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285–305.