What are the examples of charismatic authority?

What’s it: Charismatic leadership is a leadership style by accentuating charisma to attract and inspire dedication by others. It is an example of a leader-centered style in addition to authoritative and transactional leadership. Leaders believe more in their own vision and abilities than in followers. However, compared to the other two leadership styles, charismatic leaders communicate more with followers.

Examples of charismatic leaders

Soekarno is an example of a charismatic leader. He used powerful speech, a charming personality, and an unwavering commitment. He mobilized the community for positive change, namely Indonesian independence.

Some other examples of charismatic leaders are Martin Luther King. He championed civil rights and eliminated racial discrimination in the United States. On the business, there’s Jack Welch, the former CEO of General Electric.

Why charismatic leadership is important

Charismatic leaders inspire and motivate followers to commit to a goal. They fit well in an environment where people need the presence of an individual capable of driving and changing the status quo.

Charismatic leadership styles work well during urgent organizational changes. They are also important when organizations undergo fundamental changes. They are very good at motivating followers to do whatever it takes.

In those situations, the leader is considered to have extraordinary abilities. Subordinates and other stakeholders believe the leader brings change for the better. It generates positive energy among the followers. They volunteered to follow orders with high confidence.

Characteristics of charismatic leadership

Charismatic leaders care deeply about their image. For that, they will use various methods to attract and inspire followers. The following are characteristics of charismatic leaders:

• Visioner. Leaders think or plan for the future with wisdom and imagination.
• Creative. Leaders think outside the box, accept challenges, and see them as opportunities.
• Have a strong personality. Leaders exude confidence, have a strong sense of self, and rarely express self-doubt. It attracted many people to follow and carry out their orders.
• Humility. Leaders are sensitive to their environment and to the needs of followers. They are careful not to cause discomfort or hurt others.
• Risk-taker. Leaders dare to take personal risks to realize their vision and lead to better conditions.
• Great communicator. They are adept at using unconventional behavior. They can move a large number of people with just words, speech, or behavior.
• Self-monitoring. Charismatic leaders boast of themselves without which they can find no joy.
• Agent of change. Leaders change the status quo towards a better future.
• Never give up. Leaders are not desperate to achieve their dreams. They are not afraid to fail even though they have to face difficult struggles and challenges, even risking death.

Difference between charismatic leaders and transformational leaders

Some people sometimes equate charismatic leaders with transformational leaders. Indeed, the two have a lot of similarities. But, there are quite fundamental differences between the two.

On the similarities, both emphasize the leader’s decisive role as the center of change. The leader builds a vision and uses it as a foundation to influence and inspire followers. They then motivate individuals or people around them to achieve that vision. They encourage followers to be better and work for the good of the organization or society.

But, the two differ in terms of power points. Charismatic leaders often try to make the status quo better. They build a vision, which then becomes the vision of the followers. Meanwhile, transformational leaders transform organizations through a shared vision and focus on improving and developing all followers.

Charismatic leaders use their charisma and persona to mobilize people towards change. Meanwhile, transformational leaders use a shared vision to do so.

Charismatic leadership strengths and weaknesses

There are many pros to a charismatic leadership style. Here are the details:

• Become a catalyst for change for the better. The leader sells the vision and encourages people to make it happen. They are looking for opportunities to improve things and tend to be dissatisfied with existing ones.
• Build positive energy. It makes followers confident that they are on the right track. They also build optimism and togetherness among followers.
• Build a strong commitment among followers. Thus, followers are united to carry out and realize the leader’s vision. Leaders communicate with followers on a deep emotional level, thereby evoking strong emotions in followers.

But, there are some downsides to charismatic leadership.

• Self-centered. Leaders are too confident with their charisma. They see their vision as the best, although not for some. Take, for example, Soekarno’s national, religious, and communist vision. Most Indonesians disagree because it is not following the foundation of the Indonesian state. Furthermore, charismatic leaders may believe they are above the law, committing financial or ethical violations.
• No regeneration. Leaders cannot pass on their leadership style to others because it is inherent in each individual’s personality. So depending too much on a charismatic leader is not good. If the leader retires or leaves the company, it can seem like it loses its way and may collapse.

Assessment | Biopsychology | Comparative | Cognitive | Developmental | Language | Individual differences | Personality | Philosophy | Social |
Methods | Statistics | Clinical | Educational | Industrial | Professional items | World psychology |

Social psychology: Altruism · Attribution · Attitudes · Conformity · Discrimination · Groups · Interpersonal relations · Obedience · Prejudice · Norms · Perception · Index · Outline

Jesus is considered by scholars such as Weber to be an example of a charismatic religious leader.

The sociologist Max Weber defined charismatic authority as "resting on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him." Charismatic authority is one of three forms of authority laid out in Weber's tripartite classification of authority, the other two being traditional authority and rational-legal authority. The concept has acquired wide usage among sociologists.

Characteristics

In his writings about charismatic authority, Weber applies the term charisma to "a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader [...] How the quality in question would be ultimately judged from an ethical, aesthetic, or other such point of view is naturally indifferent for the purpose of definition."[1]

Charismatic authority is 'power legitimized on the basis of a leader's exceptional personal qualities or the demonstration of extraordinary insight and accomplishment, which inspire loyalty and obedience from followers'.[2] As such, it rests almost entirely on the leader; the absence of that leader for any reason can lead to the authority's power dissolving. However, due to its idiosyncratic nature and lack of formal organization, charismatic authority depends much more strongly on the perceived legitimacy of the authority than Weber’s other forms of authority. For instance, a charismatic leader in a religious context might require an unchallenged belief that the leader has been touched by God, in the sense of a guru or prophet. [1] Should the strength of this belief fade, the power of the charismatic leader can fade quickly, which is one of the ways in which this form of authority shows itself to be unstable. In contrast to the current popular use of the term charismatic leader, Weber saw charismatic authority not so much as character traits of the charismatic leader but as a relationship between the leader and his followers — much in the same way that Freud would transform Gustave Le Bon's crowd psychology through the notion of identification and of an Ideal of the Ego. The validity of charism is founded on its "recognition" by the leader's followers (or "adepts" - Anhänger). This recognition "is not (in authentic charism) the grounds of legitimity, but a duty, for those who are chosen, in virtue of this call and of its confirmation, to recognize this quality. "Recognition" which is, psychologically, a completely personal abandon, full of faith, born either from enthusiasm or from necessity and hope. No prophet has seen his quality as depending from the crowd's opinion towards himself", although his charisma risks disappearing if he is "abandoned by God" or if "his government doesn't provide any prosperity to those whom he dominates".

Note that according to Weber, a charismatic leader does not have to be a positive force;[How to reference and link to summary or text] thus, Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler could be reasonably considered charismatic leaders. Furthermore, sociology is axiologically neutral (Wertfreie Soziologie) towards various forms of charismatic domination: it does not makes difference between the charisma of a Berserker, of a shaman, of the founder of Mormonism or of the one displayed by Kurt Eisner. For Weber, sociology considers these types of charismatic domination in "an identical manner than the charisma of heros, prophets, the "greatest" saviours according to common appreciation".

Routinizing charisma

Charismatic authority almost always evolves in the context of boundaries set by traditional or rational (legal) authority, but by its nature tends to challenge this authority and is thus often seen as revolutionary. [2] However, the constant challenge that charismatic authority presents to a particular society will eventually subside as it is incorporated into that society. The way in which this happens is called routinization.

Routinization is the process by which ‘charismatic authority is succeeded by a bureaucracy controlled by a rationally established authority or by a combination of traditional and bureaucratic authority’ (Turney, Beeghley, and Powers, 1995 cited in Kendal et al. 2000). For example, Muhammad, who had charismatic authority as "The Prophet" among his followers, was succeeded by the traditional authority and structure of Islam, a clear example of routinization.

Some leaders may employ various tools to create and extend their charismatic authority; for example utilizing the science of public relations.

As in the example of Islam, a religion which evolves its own priesthood and establishes a set of laws and rules is likely to lose its charismatic character and move towards another type of authority upon the removal of that leader.

In politics, charismatic rule is often found in various authoritarian states, autocracies, dictatorships and theocracies. In order to help to maintain their charismatic authority, such regimes will often establish a vast personality cult, which can be seen as an attempt to gain legitimacy by an appeal to other forms of authority. When the leader of such a state dies or leaves office and a new charismatic leader does not appear, such a regime is likely to fall shortly thereafter unless it has become fully routinized.

Application of Weber's theories

Weber’s model of charismatic leadership giving way to institutionalization is endorsed by several academic sociologists, such as Eileen Barker. Barker discusses in a book written for the general public how new religious movements often have founders or leaders who wield considerable charismatic authority and who are believed to have special powers or knowledge. She asserts that almost by definition, charismatic leaders are unpredictable, for they are not bound by tradition or rules. Such leaders may be accorded by their followers the right to pronounce on all aspects of their lives. Barker warns that in these cases the leader may lack any accountability, require unquestioning obedience, and encourage a dependency upon the movement for material, spiritual and social resources.[3]. George D. Chryssides asserts that not all new religious movements have charismatic leaders, and that there are differences in the hegemonic styles among those movements that do.[4]

Len Oakes, an Australian psychologist who wrote a dissertation about charisma, had eleven charismatic leaders fill in a psychometric test, which he called the adjective checklist and found them as a group quite ordinary. Following the psychoanalyst Heinz Kohut, Oakes argues that charismatic leaders exhibit traits of narcissism and also argues that they display an extraordinary amount of energy, accompanied by an inner clarity unhindered by the anxieties and guilt that afflict more ordinary people. He did however not fully follow Weber's framework of charismatic authority.[5]

Some authors describe Weber's concept of charismatic authority as charismatic domination[6] or charismatic leadership[7]

See also

References

1. ↑ Weber, Maximillan. Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Chapter: "The Nature of Charismatic Authority and its Routinization" translated by A. R. Anderson and Talcot Parsons, 1947. Originally published in 1922 in German under the title Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft chapter III, § 10 (available online)
   Original German: "»Charisma« soll eine als außeralltäglich (ursprünglich, sowohl bei Propheten wie bei therapeutischen wie bei Rechts-Weisen wie bei Jagdführern wie bei Kriegshelden: als magisch bedingt) geltende Qualität einer Persönlichkeit heißen, um derentwillen sie als mit übernatürlichen oder übermenschlichen oder mindestens spezifisch außeralltäglichen, nicht jedem andern zugänglichen Kräften oder Eigenschaften oder als gottgesandt oder als vorbildlich und deshalb als »Führer« gewertet wird."
2. ↑ Kendall, Diana, Jane Lothian Murray, and Rick Linden. Sociology in our time (2nd ed.), 2000. Scarborough, On: Nelson, 438-439.
3. ↑ Barker, E. New Religious Movements: A Practical Introduction (1990), Bernan Press, ISBN 0-11-340927-3
4. ↑ Chryssides, George D. Unrecognized charisma? A study and comparison of four charismatic leaders: Charles Taze Russell, Joseph Smith, L Ron Hubbard, Swami Prabhupada. Paper presented at the 2001 International Conference The Spiritual Supermarket: Religious Pluralism in the 21st Century, organised by INFORM and CESNUR (London, April 19-22, 2001). Available online
5. ↑ Oakes, Len: Prophetic Charisma: The Psychology of Revolutionary Religious Personalities, 1997, ISBN 0-8156-0398-3
6. ↑ Domination, Legitimation, and Authority Sociology 250 Retrieved October 2006
7. ↑ Adair-Toteff, Christopher, Max Weber’s Charisma, Journal of Classical Sociology, Vol. 5, No. 2, 189-204 (2005)

External links