-
PERSONALITY AND CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP
Robert J. House* The Wharton School
University of Pennsylvania
Jane M. Howell University of Western Ontario
In this paper we review prior theory and empirical evidence
relevant to the personality characteristics that differentiate
charismatic leaders from noncharismatic leaders. We conclude from
this review that charismatic leaders in present day complex
organizations fit the stereotypical image of supportive, sensitive,
nurturing, and considerate leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi or Nelson
Mandela, rather than the traditional stereotype of aggressive,
demanding, dominant and critical leaders such as Jim Jones or Field
Marshall George Montgomery. We then present a review of research
relevant to four traits that theoretically differentiate
personalized (self-aggrandizing, non-egalitarian, and exploitive)
charismatic leaders from socialized (collectively oriented,
egalitarian, and nonexploitive) charismatic leaders. We conclude
that the personality traits of the need for power, power
inhibition, Machiavellianism, authoritarianism, narcissism, self
esteem and locus of control are traits that are likely to
differentiate personalized from socialized charismatic leaders.
Over the last 15 years a substantial body of theory and
empirical evidence has been accumulated concerning exceptional
leasders who have extraordinary effects on their followers and
eventually on social systems. Such leadership-alternatively called
charismatic (House, 1977; Weber, 1947), visionary (Sashkin, 1988),
transforma- tional (Avolio & Bass, 1988; Bass, 1985; Burns,
1978), and inspirational (Yukl & Van Fleet, 1982)-is claimed to
influence followers in ways that are quantitatively greater and
qualitatively different than the follower effects specified in past
leadership theories. We refer to this new genre of leadership
theories as charismatic because charisma is a central concept in
all of them, either explicitly or implicitly.
*Direct all correspondence to: Robert J. House, The Wharton
School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadephia, PA 19104-6370.
Leadership Quarterly, 3(2), 81-108. Copyright @ 1992 by JAI
Press Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN:
1048-9843
-
a2 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 3 No. 2 1992
According to charismatic leadership theory, such leaders
transform the needs, values, preferences, desires and aspirations
of followers from self-interests to collective interests. Further,
they cause followers to become highly committed to the leaders
mission, to make significant personal sacrifices in the interest of
the mission, and to perform above and beyond the call of duty.
Bennis and Nanus (1985) and Tichy and Devanna (1986) argue that
such leaders have a transforming effect on the organizations that
they lead as well as on their followers.
ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRADITIONAL LEADERSHIP THEORIES
AND CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES
In contrast to earlier leadership theories, which concern the
effects of leaders on follower cognitions and task-related
behavior, charismatic theories take as their dependent variables
followers emotional attachment to the leader; followers emotional
and motivational arousal; enhancement of followers valences with
respect to the mission articulated by the leader; followers
self-esteem, trust, and confidence in the leader; followers values;
and followers intrinsic motivation.
The leader behavior specified by charismatic theories also
differs from traditional leadership theories. The earlier
leadership theories describe leader behavior in terms of
leader-follower exchange relationships (Graen & Cashman, 1975;
Hollander, 1964) providing direction and support (Evans, 1970;
House, 1971) and reinforcement behaviors (Ashour & Johns, 1983;
Podsakoff, Todor, & Skov, 1982). In contrast, charismatic
leadership theory emphasizes symbolic leader behavior, visionary
and inspirational ability, nonverbal communication, appeal to
ideological values, intellectual stimulation of followers by the
leader, and leader expectations for follower self-sacrifice and for
performance beyond expectations. Such leadership is seen as giving
meaning to work by infusing work and organizations with moral
purpose and commitment rather than by affecting the cognitions or
the task environment of followers, or by offering material
incentives and the threat of punishment.
As of our last count, there have been at least 25 studies of
this new genre of leadership theory. These studies have been
conducted using a wide variety of methods including laboratory
experimentation, participant observation, cross-sectional and
longitudinal survey research in natural settings, case studies,
qualitative interpretative analysis, rigorous content analysis of
interviews, observation in a management game, and analysis of
archival data. These studies have also been based on a wide variety
of samples including U.S. presidents, university students, project
champions, chief executive officers, military combat and noncombat
squad leaders, naval and airforce cadet squadron leaders, and
middle and lower level managers in the United States. In addition,
middle managers in India, school principals in Singapore, and
managers of supermarkets in Holland have also been studied (see
House, Spangler, and Woycke [ I99 11 for a review of these
studies).
Space limitations prevent a detailed review of the methodology
and the specific findings of each of these studies. However,
collectively the findings indicate that charismatic behaviors
produce the theoretical charismatic effects on followers specified
above as dependent variables, receive higher performance ratings,
have more satisfied and more highly motivated followers, and are
viewed as more effective leaders by their superiors and followers
than others in positions of leadership. Further, the effect
size
-
Personality and Charismatic Leadership 83
of charismatic leader behavior on follower satisfaction and
performance is consistently higher than prior field study findings
concerning other leader behavior, generally ranging well below .Ol
probability of error due to chance, with correlations frequently
ranging in the neighborhood of SO or better, even when
common-method and common- source bias is controlled.
According to House (1977) and Shamir, House, and Arthur (1992),
the charismatic behaviors that theoretically result in these
effects are: (1) articulating an ideological vision-a vision that
specifies a better future state in terms of such values as human
rights, peace, freedom, order, equality, and attainment of status
and privileges that are claimed to be the moral right of followers;
(2) referring to distal rather than proximate goals; (3)
communicating messages that contain frequent reference to values
and moral justifications, to the collective and to collective
identity, and to followers worth and efficacy as individuals and as
a collective; (3) behaviorally role modeling the values implied in
the vision by personal example; (4) expressing high performance
expectations of followers; (5) communicating a high degree of
confidence in followers ability to meet such expectations; and (6)
demonstrating behaviors that selectively arouse unconscious
achievement, power, and affiliative motives of followers when these
motives are specifically relevant to the attainment of the vision.
(See House and Shamir 119921 for a discussion of charismatic
leaders motive arousing behaviors.)
Other authors have suggested additional charismatic behaviors.
Weber (1947) argued that charismatic leaders offer radical
solutions to major social problems. Bass (1985) suggested that
charismatic leaders intellectually stimulate their followers and
are sensitive to follower needs and considerate of followers.
Conger and Kanungo (1987) and Sashkin (1988) argued that
charismatic leaders take extraordinary risks in pursuit of their
vision. With the exception of number six above, which has not been
investigated, all of the behaviors have been shown to differentiate
charismatic leaders from noncharismatic leaders and to have a
positive effect on leader and follower effectiveness and follower
motivation and satisfaction.
THE PROBLEM
Despite the increased attention being focused on charismatic
leadership in the academic literature, to date no scholarly
consensus has emerged on the precise application of the concept of
charisma (Howell & House, 1992). The term charismatic has been
applied to very diverse leaders emerging in political arenas (Adolf
Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Fidel Castro, Franklin Delano Roosevelt),
in religious movements (Jesus Christ, Jim Jones), in social
movement organizations (Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr.,
Malcolm X), and in business organizations (Lee Iacocca, Steven
Jobs, Ross Johnson, Mary Kay Ash). Clearly, charisma is a broadly
applied term that does not distinguish between good or moral and
evil or immoral leadership. The challenge facing leadership
scholars, therefore, is to distinguish between different types of
charismatic leaders using criteria that are free of moral
evaluation such as observable and verifiable personality
characteristics of the leaders.
There has been some theoretical speculation and empirical
research concerning the personality characteristics which
differentiate charismatic leaders (CLs) from noncharismatic leaders
(NCLs) (House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1991; Howell &
Higgins,
-
84 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 3 No. 2 1992
1990a; Ross & Offerman, 1991; Roush & Atwater, 1992;
Smith, 1982). Further, several authors have advanced speculations
suggesting personality traits and behaviors that theoretically
differentiate personalized (self-aggrandizing, exploitive, and non-
egalitarian) leaders from socialized (collectively motivated,
nonexploitive, and egalitarian) leaders (Bass, 1988; Hogan, Raskin,
& Fazzini, 1990; Howell, 1988; Howell & Avolio, 1992;
Howell & House, 1992; Musser, 1988). However, the theory and
research concerning CL personality characteristics is both quite
limited and fragmentary.
The purpose of this paper is to summarize the evidence
concerning CL personality characteristics and to advance a
theoretical extension of CL theory. The theoretical extension
presented here consists of identification of a set of personality
characteristics that theoretically differentiate personalized from
socialized CLs. Before presenting our review of the evidence
concerning CL personality, we first define the terms personalized
and socialized charisma.
Defining Socialized and Personalized CL
Following McClelland (1975), we define socialized charismatic
leadership as leadership which (a) is based on egalitarian
behavior, (b) serves collective interests and is not driven by the
self-interest of the leader and (c) develops and empowers others.
McClelland and his colleagues (1972) reported a study which
suggests that socialized leaders tend to be altruistic, to work
through legitimate established channels and systems of authority
when such systems exist, and to be self-controlled and
follower-oriented rather than narcissistic.
Also, following McClelland (1975), we define personalized
charismatic leadership as leadership which (a) is based on personal
dominance and authoritarian behavior, (b) serves the self-interest
of the leader and is self-aggrandizing and (c) is exploitive of
others (McClelland, 1975). Theoretically personalized leaders rely
on personal approval or rejection of followers to induce others to
comply with their wishes. They show disregard for the rights and
feelings of others and they tend to be narcissistic, impetuous, and
impulsively aggressive (Howe11 & House, 1992). (See Howell and
House [19921 for a more detailed, rich description of personalized
and socialized leadership.)
While we delineate two pure types of charismatic leadership, it
is recognized that these leadership types are not mutually
exclusive. It is possible that a leader will, at times,
simultaneously display behavior that reflects some aspects of both
personalized and socialized charismatic tendencies. Although such
mixed forms of charisma undoubtedly occur, the extreme or pure
types of charisma are analyzed here for purposes of differentiating
them.
We now turn to our discussion of the personality traits of CLs,
followed by a description of the personality characteristics that
theoretically differentiate personalized from socialized CLs.
PERSONALITY TRAITS OF CLs
In this section we review early research evidence on leader
personality traits, summarize empirical findings relevant to traits
that characterize CLs, and then contrast CL traits with leader
personality traits in general. Prior to embarking on this review,
we clarify
-
Personality and Charismatic Leadership 85
the terms dominance and need for power which appear in our
discussion of
leadership traits.
Clarification of Terms
In the discussion that follows the constructs dominance and need
for power are defined. Unfortunately, the dominance scale of the
California Personality Inventory (CPI) and the need referred to by
McClelland as the need for power (or n-pow, or the power motive),
convey meanings to most people that are not consistent with what is
measured by these two constructs, when operationalized. The CPI
dominance scale is a measure of prosocial assertiveness and is not
a measure of the need to dominate or to control others, or to
engage in authoritarian behavior. As pointed out by House and Baetz
(1979, p. 351), the CPI dominance scale measures prosocial
assertiveness and ascendence in social settings and not bossy,
pushy, or domineering behavior. Individuals who score high on the
CPI Dominance scale tend to take initiative in social settings, to
introduce people to each other, and to be socially engaging by
being humorous, introducing topics of discussion, and stimulating
social interaction. Such individuals are socially ascendent in that
they are clearly noticeable, and their behavior is usually
welcomed.
The need for power is operationally a measure of nonconscious
motivation to have an impact on others or ones environment.
According to McClelland and his associates (1972), the manner in
which this need is satisfied, whether prosocial or antisocial,
depends on whether the individual also has a nonconscious need to
be responsible for his or her actions and for the consequences of
such actions on others (Winter, 1991).
The labels dominance and need for power have the negative
connotation of socially undesirable, domineering, and controlling
behavior. Accordingly, these labels have misled the readers of the
literature concerning both motivation and leadership. It would be
much more accurate to relabel the CPI dominance scale as prosocial
assertiveness and the need for power as need for social
influence.
Early Research on leader Personality Traits
Early research concerning leader personality traits identified a
number of traits that frequently, but not always, differentiated
emergent from non-emergent leaders, and effective from ineffective
leaders (Mann, 1959; Stogdill, 1948). One of the traits most
frequently found by Stogdill to be predictive of leader behavior or
leader effectiveness is dominance (often measured by the CPI
dominance scale). Other traits consistently predictive of leader
behavior are intelligence, self-confidence, activity or energy, and
task-relevant knowledge. Stodgill (1948) pointed out that traits
are likely to be better predictors of leader behavior and
effectiveness if treated as variables that interact with selected
contextual variables to predict leader behavior or leader
effectiveness. Contrary to much folklore in the social sciences
literature, Stogdill did not call for a moratorium on trait
research, nor did he assert that traits are not predictive of
leader behavior or effectiveness.
House and Baetz (1979) pointed out that Stogdills (1948) summary
is somewhat misleading in that it included studies based on
children and adolescent leaders. When studies based on children or
adolescent leaders were excluded from Stogdills analysis,
-
86 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 3 No. 2 1992
the results showed a set of traits that had a consistent set of
effects on follower attributions of leadership, leadership
emergence or leadership performance. In fact, almost all of the
negative or conflicting findings reviewed by Stogdill are based on
studies of children or adolescent leaders of youthful gangs,
groups, or athletic teams. Further, many of the studies reported by
Stogdill(l948) and Mann (1959) had respectable effect sizes ranging
between .40 to .50.
Recent studies have confirmed the importance of trait-based
variance in leadership (Kenny & Zaccaro, 1983; Lord, De Vader,
& Alliger, 1986; Zaccaro, Foti, & Kenny, 1991). For
example, in a reanalysis of a leadership trait study conducted by
Barnlund (1962) Kenny and Zaccaro (1983) reported that between 49%
and 82% of leadership variance could be attributed to a stable
characteristic of the emergent leader. They speculated that this
characteristic may involve leader social sensitivity and behavioral
flexibility. This speculation was supported in a subsequent
investigation of the relationship between perceived leader status
across different group situations and interpersonal sensitivity
conducted by Zaccaro, Foti, and Kenny (199 1). They found that 59%
of the variance in leadership emergence was trait-based and
suggested that social perceptiveness and behavioral flexibility
were the relevant leadership traits.
Lord, De Vader, and Alliger (1986) conducted a meta-analysis of
35 studies reported by Mann (1959) and others dealing with six
traits that were associated with follower attributions of
leadership. Traits that Lord and his associates found to be
significantly associated with follower perceptions of leadership
were intelligence, dominance, and masculinity-femininity.
Adjustment was also very close to being statistically significant.
Thus, Lord and his colleagues (1986) concluded that personality
traits are associated with leadership perceptions to a higher
degree and more consistently than the popular literature indicates
(p. 407).
House and Baetz (1979) argued that a select set of traits are
likely to differentiate leaders from nonleaders, and effective
leaders from ineffective leaders in most circumstances because:
First, leadership always takes place with respect to others.
Therefore, social skills are likely always to be needed if
attempted influence acts are to be viewed as acceptable to others.
Such skills as speech fluency and such traits as personal
integrity, cooperativeness, and sociability are prime candidates
for the status of leadership traits.
Second, leadership requires a predisposition to be influential.
Therefore such traits as dominance or ascendance, need for
influence.. and need for power... are also hypothesized to be
associated with leadership.
Third, leadership most frequently takes place with respect to
specific task objectives or organizational goals. Consequently,
such traits as need for achievement, initiative, tendency to assume
personal responsibility for outcomes, desire to excel, energy, and
task-relevant ability are also hypothesized to be associated with
leadership (p. 353).
Traits Specifically Characteristic of Cls
There is some theory and evidence with respect to the
psychological traits that differentiate CLs from NCLs. Weber (1947)
argued that CLs have a special gift which sets them apart from
ordinary individuals. According to Weber, by virtue of this special
gift, which appears from his writings to be a specific and unique
personality syndrome,
-
Personality and Charismatic Leadership 87
CLs are able to command love, respect, awe, devotion, voluntary
compliance, and substantial personal sacrifices from followers in
pursuit of their vision and mission. Weber did not, however,
specify the nature of this gift, the personality traits of CLs, or
the behaviors that set them apart from ordinary people.
Borgatta, Couch, and Bales (1954) argued that some leaders are
great and that by virtue of their greatness they are able to lead
followers to larger achievements than others who are not great.
This argument is referred to the literature as the Great Man Theory
of Leadership. Borgattaet al. (1954) provided supportive evidence
for the Great Man Theory. These authors selected 11 Great Men out
of 126 who scored high on three attributes: task ability
(leadership ratings received on a prior task and IQ score),
individual assertiveness (ratings received on a prior task), and
social acceptability (sociometric choice on a prior task). These
Great Men were each assigned to four task groups. Two new
co-participants were involved in each task. The groups led by Great
Men were compared to groups led by men who were not high on all
three of the above dimensions. Groups led by Great Men had higher
rates of giving suggestions and arriving at agreements, lower
tension, and higher positive social and emotional behavior in
comparison to groups not led by Great Men. The authors concluded .
. .thus, it may be said that great men tend to make great groups in
the sense that both major factors of group performance-productivity
and satisfaction of the members-are increased (p. 759). Thus, there
is evidence that great or possibly charismatic leaders are
distinguished from others in terms of personality traits and
behaviors.
Houses (1977) theory of charismatic leadership includes a
description of personality characteristics that theoretically
differentiate CLs from NCLs. According to Houses theory, CLs have
high self-confidence, high verbal ability, high need for influence
or power, and exceptionally strong convictions in the moral
correctness of their beliefs. Theoretically CLs need to have a very
high degree of self-confidence and moral conviction because their
mission is usually unconventional and likely to be resisted from
those who have a stake in preserving the status quo. Consequently,
CLs need to be exceptionally determined and to persist in the face
of high risks and major obstacles. Further, the display of
confidence and determination inspires and thus motivates and
empowers followers. According to House (1977), nonverbal
expressiveness and the ability to be verbally articulate are
necessary for CLs to communicate their vision and mission in a
compelling way to followers. Finally, House argues that CLs need to
derive satisfaction from the process of leading others and being
influential. Thus they need to have a high need for influence if
they are to receive intrinsic satisfaction from leading and to be
sustained in the face of risks, obstacles and hardship.
Support for the general proposition that personality traits
differentiate CLs from NCLs has been reported in several field
studies. Smith (1982) administered the Ghiselli self-assurance
scale and the CPI dominance scale to 30 reputed effective CLs and
30 reputed effective NCLs. He also obtained follower ratings of the
leaders personal dynamism using a scale that reflects leaders
enthusiasm, energy, and involvement with respect to their work. He
found the CLs to be more self-assured and dynamic than the NCLs.
However the scores of the two groups on the dominance scale were
not significantly different. Based on interviews with the leaders,
Smith further reported that the CLs were more developmentally
oriented towards their followers than the NCLs.
-
88 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 3 No. 2 1992
That is, CLs showed more concern for the professional growth of
their followers and reported that they engaged in more
developmental efforts such as coaching, role modeling by personal
example, and providing guidance and developmental experiences.
Based on a rigorous content analysis of interview transcripts of
a matched sample of 25 champions and 25 nonchampions of
technological innovations, Howell and Higgins (1990a, 1990b) found
that champions reported that they engaged in the following leader
behaviors significantly more than nonchampions: articulating a
compelling vision of the innovations potential for the
organization, expressing confidence in others to participate
effectively in the initiative, displaying unconventional,
innovative actions to achieve goals, showing self-confidence, and
assessing environmental resources and constraints for bringing
about change. Champions also initiated significantly more influence
attempts than nonchampions. Thus champions can be considered
informal charismatic leaders. The personality characteristics that
differentiated champions from nonchampions were higher risk taking,
cognitive achievement orientation and innovativeness.
Ross and Offerman (1990) tested the hypothesis that since CLs
change organizational cultures, goals, ideology, and follower
norms, such leaders are likely to have a higher need for change and
to be more flexible than NCLs. These investigators also tested a
hypothesis suggested by an exploratory study conducted previously
by Clover (1988). Ross and Offerman (1990) report that:
Clover found that the transformational Icharismatic] leaders
scored significantly higher in measures of feminine attributes,
nurturance and pragmatism than did the nontransformational leaders.
The transformational leaders also scored significantly lower on
measures of masculine attributes, dominance, aggression, and
criticalness. Clover concluded that his group of transformational
leaders was more flexible, more compassionate, more insightful,
more pragmatic, and less forceful and tough than their
nontransformational counterparts (p. 4).
Ross and Offerman (1990) note that these results are obviously
at odds with the stereotypical military leader (p. 4). Following
Clover (1988), they postulated that CLs are likely to be higher on
feminine attributes, nurturance, and pragmatism than NCLs.
The subjects of the Ross and Offerman study were 40 U.S. Air
Force Academy commis- sioned officers. The officers were in their
mid-careers and each was in charge of a squadron of 110 cadets. The
leader behavior of these officers was assessed on the basis of
ratings provided by themselves and three closely associated
subordinates using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)
(Bass, 1985). Ross and Offerman also administered several scales of
the Gough and Heilbrun (1975) adjective checklist to the
officers.
The correlations between the cadets ratings of officer CL
behavior and the assessed personality traits are presented in Table
1. From this table it can be seen that several leader traits are
correlated with ratings of charismatic behavior. The most
intriguing aspect of these findings is that charisma is positively
related to the personality traits of feminism and nurturance and
negatively correlated with masculinity, dominance, aggression and
criticalness. These findings are not only at odds with prior
findings concerning conventional leaders reviewed above, but also
somewhat counterintuitive in that the stereotype of charismatic
leaders, especially in the military, suggests that such leaders
would be bold, assertive, and forceful.
-
Personality and Charismatic Leadership 89
Table 1 Correlations of Personality Measures and Charismatic
Leadership
(The Ross and Offerman Study)
Measure ACL Scale(s) Correlations
Need for change Self-confidence Dominance Feminine attributes
Pragmatism Nurturance Masculine attributes Criticalness
Aggression
Need for change and Creative personality Self-confidence and
Personal adjustment Dominance Feminine A-3 Nurturance and Nurturing
parent Masculine Critical parent Aggression
.34*
.63***
.I5
.54***
.69*** ,61+**
-.17 -.49*** -.47***
* p < .05
** p < .Ol
*** I, < ,001
There are two possible explanations for these counterintuitive
findings. First, Bass (1985) and Sashkin (1988) argue that
charismatic leaders are highly considerate of, and sensitive to,
the needs of their followers. The above findings are consistent
with this argument. Second, the Path Goal Theory of Leader
Effectiveness (House, 1971) predicts that supportive leadership is
most satisfying to followers under conditions of dissatisfying
jobs, stress, or boredom. Accordingly, leaders who are more
feminine and nurturant and less masculine, dominant, critical, and
aggressive would be predicted from this theory to produce more
follower satisfaction under highly demanding and structured
conditions such as those found in the Air Force Academy. We return
to a discussion of this issue later.
Roush and Atwater (1992) studied the personality characteristics
of 90 midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy who had been assigned as
squad leaders for incoming Naval Academy students. The midshipmen
had completed 2 or 3 years at the Academy. Their task was to help
incoming freshmen in the transition from civilian to military life;
to impart to them a modicum of military skills, knowledge and
attitudes; and to prepare them for integration into the Brigade of
Midshipmen.
The midshipmen completed the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI)
which permits classification of respondents into personality types
according to whether they prefer extroversion or introversion,
sensing or intuition, thinking or feeling, and judging or
perception, as their ways of behaving, taking in information,
making decisions, and making judgments. The leader behavior of
midshipmen was assessed by responses from 1,235 freshmen and
self-reports from the 90 midshipmen using a modified version of
Basss (1985) MLQ. Freshmen also completed a satisfaction
questionnaire and a scale that measured midshipmen effectiveness
with respect to ability, meeting requirements of the command,
representing the squad to higher authority, and meeting followers
job-related needs.
Analyses were performed to assess the relationships between
leaders MBTI preferences and the leadership and performance ratings
provided by the followers. The results revealed that sensing as
opposed to intuition types, and feeling as opposed to
-
90 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 3 No. 2 1992
thinking types were rated significantly higher on charismatic
and inspirational leadership. Sensing types concentrate on concrete
detail rather than abstract global considerations. Feeling types
concentrate on affective responses of others rather than impersonal
logical processes and cognitions.
Followers were more likely to report extra effort for leaders
whom they rated as charismatic and inspirational. This finding is
likely to reflect common method-common source bias since all data
concerning the leaders behavior and follower effort in this
analysis were based on follower responses in the same
questionnaire. However, several studies not limited by such bias
have also demonstrated similar results (Curphy, 1990; House,
Spangler, & Woycke, 1991; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Smith, 1982).
Accordingly, there is likely to be a grain of truth in the Roush
and Atwater findings concerning the relationship between leader
charisma and follower effort, despite the likely common
method-common source bias.
Finally, House, Spangler, and Woycke (1991) tested a recent
theory which integrates McClellands Leader Motive Profile Theory
(LMP) with Houses Theory of Charismatic Leader Effectiveness.
According to McClellands LMP Theory, effective leaders will both
enjoy the process of exerting social influence (need for power) and
feel constrained not to use power in an exploitive manner through
coercion or manipulation (activity inhibition). As described
earlier, Houses Theory of Charismatic Leadership postulates that
CLs have a high need to influence others. House and his colleagues
used Winters (1987) motive scores of all elected U.S. presidents
from Washington to Carter by applying the Thematic Apperception
Test (TAT) coding procedure to presidential inaugural addresses.
Winter and Stewart (1978) have demonstrated that this coding
procedure is valid and predictive of presidential behavior. House
et al. (1991) found that the need for power and activity inhibition
were predictive of presidential charismatic leader behavior and of
presidential effectiveness in the execution of their policies.
Conclusion: CL Personality
An interesting, and somewhat surprising, picture of the
charismatic personality can be drawn from the research reviewed
above. CLs are differentiated from NCLs by several personality
traits including: cognitive achievement orientation; strong
tendencies to be creative, innovative, visionary, and
inspirational; high levels of work involvement, energy, and
enthusiasm; a strong propensity to take risks; self-confidence; a
high need for social influence coupled with a strong concern for
the moral and nonexploitive use of power in a socially desirable
manner; willingness to exercise influence but not to be dominant,
tough, forceful, aggressive, or critical; strong inclinations to be
confident in, and encouraging toward, followers and to show a
developmental orientation towards followers; and tendencies to be
nurturant, socially sensitive, and sensitive to and considerate of
follower needs.
Collectively, these studies indicate that CLs in complex
organizations do not fit the stereotype of a bold, forceful,
assertive, and aggressive leader such as General George Patton and
Ross Johnson. Rather the findings describe a leader who is
sensitive to follower needs, nurturant and developmentally oriented
such as Max DePree (1989).
-
Personality and Charismatic Leadership 91
Consistent with Basss (1985) argument, CLs appear to foster
follower independence rather than subservience. Bass (1985)
contends that transformational (or charismatic) leaders even
encourage followers to think for themselves to the extent that they
become willing to openly question the leaders directions when in
disagreement with the leader. Through coaching, questioning, and
role modeling, the leader stimulates followers to question the
status quo, to consider creative ways to tackle and solve problems
on their own, and to solve future problems unforeseen by the
leader. By creating learning opportunities for their followers,
tailoring these learning opportunities to their needs, and
providing social support conducive to learning, CLs build
followersself-confidence and self-reliance and foster their growth
and independence in a collaborative way. Ultimately CLs create
followers who are more capable of leading themselves.
We refer to the CL traits described above as socialized
leadership because these traits are generally viewed by others as
socially desirable. However, an important limitation of the
empirical studies to date is that CL has been treated as a
unidimensional phenomenon. Many recent social scientists (Graham,
1988; Hodgkinson, 1983; Hogan, Raskin, & Fazzini, 1990; Howell
1988; Howell & Avolio, 1992; Howell & House, 1992; Roberts
& Bradley, 1988; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1992) as well as
many earlier historians, playwrights, sociologists and political
scientists have recognized that charisma has both a bright side and
a dark side. Yet there is no solid empirical evidence to indicate
that unprincipled CLs are characterized by identifiable personality
characteristics. We now turn to speculative discussion of this
issue.
PERSONALITY THEORY
Our theoretical perspective regarding the components of CL
personality is an integration of the motivational theories of David
McClelland (1985a, b) and Albert Bandura (1986).
We argue that individual behavior is a function of motives,
personality traits, intentions, and situational variables. Motives
are relatively stable dispositions that serve to stimulate,
energize, direct, maintain, and terminate behavior. Motives consist
of learned networks of associations between behavioral,
physiological, affective, and cognitive responses to stimuli.
Motives are primarily nonconscious in the sense that individuals
are not usually aware of the specific stimuli that arouse their
motives. Further, individuals may also not be aware of their
behavioral tendencies and behavioral response to arousal stimuli.
However, some individuals might be, to some extent, aware of their
general behavioral tendencies and responses to stimuli. Thus
motives need not be exclusively nonconscious.
Personality traits are strongly learned and relatively stable
dispositions to behave in a coherent manner across situations and
over time. Habits, values, generalized expectations, and
dispositions to think in cognitively simple or cognitively complex
ways are examples of personality traits. Specific personality
traits that have relevance to this paper are values and individual
efficacy expectations.
Habits are behavioral responses to stimuli that are so well
learned that they do not require conscious attention to execute
their performance. Values are strongly internalized evaluative
judgements concerning the appropriateness and morality of specific
behaviors or classes of behavior. Efficacy expectations are beliefs
concerning whether the individual can effectively perform specific
behaviors. Efficacy expectations
-
92 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 3 No. 2 1992
are a function of generalized self-esteem, internal locus of
control orientation, habits that have been learned over time,
ability to perform the specific behavior under consideration and
individual perceptions of the degree to which situations offer an
adequate opportunity to perform the specific behavior. Personality
traits may be conscious, nonconscious, or a mixture of both.
Motives and personality traits are the result of social learning
and inherited capacities to gain satisfaction from selected
stimuli. These inherited capacities serve as proclivities toward
self-selection into situations in which they can be satisfied.
These proclivities also serve to focus attention and learning in
such self-selected situations. There is substantial empirical
support for this assertion. Space limitations prevent a review of
the relevant literature. However, the reader is referred to Starr
and McCartney (1983) for a theory that accounts for the genetic
inheritance of such proclivities and Bouchard, Lykken, McGue,
Segal, and Tellegen (1990) for a review of the literature
concerning genetic inheritance of motives and personality
traits.
Conscious intentions are cognitively formulated statements of
the kinds of behavior in which one plans to engage in the future.
Conscious intentions are a function of values and efficacy
expectations. Motives, personality traits, and intentions interact
with perceived situational variables to produce resultant behavior.
Perceived situational variables are a function of objective
situational variables and individual perceptions of the degree to
which such variables facilitate or constrain behavior. Individual
inclinations to perceive objective situational variables as
constraining or facilitating are a function of individual traits
such as generalized optimism and locus of control orientation.
Objective situational variables provide cues to act, guidance,
constraints on, and reinforcement for specific behaviors. Strong
situations mute behavioral expression of motives, traits and
intentions. Strong situations are situations in which appropriate
behavior is clearly signaled by cues, guidance, and rewards and
inappropriate behavior is clearly signaled by constraints and
punishment (Mischel, 1973). In addition to signaling appropriate
and inappropriate behavior, situational variables also arouse
motives for which the situational variables are salient.
Individuals perceive situational variables and make judgements
about the likelihood that behaviors will be encouraged and
rewarded. Thus situational variables interact with motives and
conscious intentions to stimulate, direct, and sustain behavior.
The specific functional relationship among these variables and
between these variables and resultant behavior awaits further
theoretical development and empirical evidence. However, for the
purpose of this paper, we believe it is sufficient to assume that
motivation to engage in personalized or socialized CL behavior is a
positive linear function of motives, personality traits, and
intentions plus an interactive function of (a) motives and
intentions and (b) situational variables.
A significant implication of the conscious-nonconscious
distinction is that long-term prediction of global behavior
patterns such as career choices, friendship ties, major social
commitments, leadership or followership style, child rearing
practices, and leisure time activities can be determined by
nonconscious motives and personality traits in interaction with the
number and strength of incentives associated with the global
behavior in question. (See Spangler [1992] for a review of evidence
concerning one nonconscious motive, the achievement motive, for
example.) We recognize that such
-
Personality and Charismatic Leadership 93
behavior can be tempered by cognitive choice and constraint.
However, we argue that cognitive self-regulation of behavior itself
can be determined by nonconscious motives or traits associated with
affect such as the power motive and the trait of narcissism (see
studies by Isen, Means, Patrick, and Nowicki, 1982; Higgins, Klein,
and Strauman, 1985; and Abramson and Martin, 1981; for theory and
research relevant to the relationship between affect and
cognition).
Another significant implication of the conscious-nonconscious
distinction is that in contrast to conscious personality traits,
nonconscious motives and traits are less amenable to cognitive
control and thus will be less affected by an individuals awareness
of situational variables in his or her environment. While the
behavioral expression of nonconscious motives and personality
traits may be constrained or aroused by situational forces, the
behavioral expression of such motives and traits is less likely to
be affected by cognitions alone.
Short-term behavior such as specific task behavior can be
predicted from conscious intentions. Long-term behavior can be
predicted from intentions when such intentions are translated into
concrete and specific goals. Conscious intentions have their most
powerful effect on both short- and long-term behavior when
deliberately and consciously transformed into specific goals with
concrete or quantitative indicators of attainment (Locke &
Latham, 1990). Thus intentions to be successful when transformed
into a goal such as to reach the level of vice presidency in firm X
within Y years, will be more predictive of behavior and are much
more likely to be translated into desired behavior than more
general and abstract statements of intentions. Goals are not
motives or personality traits, but rather the result of choices
made by individuals. Goals may reflect either nonconscious motives
or conscious values or both. Specific, concrete goals are powerful
long-term predictors of behavior because they embody much more than
conscious intentions. In the formation of such goals, one reflects
on skills needed to attain the goals, ones weaknesses and specific
developmental efforts that need to be taken, the environmental
obstacles that need to be overcome, and the sources of support that
one can call upon in the pursuit of the goals. Further, as a result
of such deliberations, one is likely to subjectively estimate the
probability of goal attainment and adjust ones aspiration level to
be as realistic as possible.
Concrete and specific goals provide a benchmark against which
one can use feedback to measure progress, direct ones attention to
the kind of indicators to which one can attend to assess progress,
and permit one to establish a schedule against which progress can
be measured. Thus concrete, specific goals permit one to monitor
progress toward goal attainment. Failure to meet scheduled progress
directs attention to corrective action. The experience of progress
in the pursuit of goals is intrinsically rewarding and the
experience of lack of progress is frustrating and dissatisfying.
Thus, when either nonconscious motives or conscious intentions are
transformed into specific, concrete goals such goals have powerful
short- and long-term motivational effects.
However, long-term patterns of behavior, not directed by
specific goals, are determined predominantly by nonconscious
motivation and personality traits. Since individuals are aware of
conscious traits and values, and therefore their behavioral
expression, conscious traits and values are at least somewhat
amenable to cognitive control. We say somewhat because habituation,
or strength of prior learning, may
-
94 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 3 No. 2 1992
be so strong that even though individuals may be aware of their
behavioral inclinations, they may not be able to bring such
inclinations under cognitive control, especially in highly
stressful situations. Consider, for example, the difficulties
individuals experience in extinguishing such behavior as heavy
drinking, smoking, or losing ones temper, despite conscious
intention to extinguish such behaviors.
According to the theory presented here, nonconscious and
conscious processes influence each other through their independent
impact on affect. Affect can drive and direct cognitive processes
such as search behavior, use of feedback, level of goal choice, and
memory. Both the experience of cognitions and the arousal of
nonconscious motives can induce the experience of affect. For
example, when an individual receives bad news, such as the loss of
a loved one, he or she becomes depressed. If an individual is
insulted, he or she is likely to become upset, frustrated, or
angry. Once an individual is in a particular affective state such
as depression or contentedness, the affective state influences
cognitive processes. For example, depressed individuals are likely
to interpret information negatively. Thus, while conscious and
nonconscious processes may analytically be conceived of as
independent systems, both influence an individuals experience of
affect, which in turn influences both systems.
These assertions concerning motivation and behavior provide the
theoretical framework for the remainder of this paper. We now turn
to a discussion of the personality characteristics that are
theoretical antecedents to the two pure types of CLs.
PERSONALITY ANTECEDENTS OF PERSONALIZED AND SOCIALIZED CL
In this section we briefly summarize evidence relevant to
several personality traits that we believe theoretically
differentiate personalized from socialized CLs. We selected these
personality traits because they have been shown to be associated
with CL behavior, or because they have been shown to be implicated
in the exercise of power in a socialized or personalized manner.
Thus these traits may be useful in predicting personalized or
socialized CL.
The Need For Power
One motive relevant to the exercise of both personalized and
socialized charismatic leadership is the need for power (also
referred to as n-pow or the power motive). McClelland and his
associates have conducted a substantial number of studies on the
need for power, over 100 at our last count. These studies provide
convincing evidence of both the construct validity and predictive
validity of the n-pow motive measure. For example, it has been
shown that after the power need has been aroused, there is a marked
gain in norepinephrine excretion in the subjects urine and in
subjects physiological activation (Steele, 1973, 1977). Further,
the gain in norepinephrine is positively correlated (r = f .66, p
< .05) with the amount of power imagery in stories written after
the need for power has been aroused. McClelland (1985) reviewed a
number of studies that show that arousal of n-pow is associated
with increases in adrenalin, dopamine, and endorphins in ones blood
stream.
-
Personality and Charismatic Leadership 95
Subjects with high n-pow react more sensitively to power-related
stimuli than to neutral stimuli (Davidson et al., 1980; McClelland
et al., 1979) recall more peak experiences that are described in
power terms, and remember more power-related facts relative to
neutral facts than do low or neutral n-pow subjects (McAdams,
1982). Individuals with high n-pow show more partiality toward
ingratiating followers than individuals with low n-pow (Fodor &
Farrow, 1979) and inhibit group discussion more than low n-pow
individuals. As a consequence, in one experiment, the number of
alternatives considered were fewer and the quality of decisions
lower for groups led by high n-pow individuals (Fodor & Smith,
1982).
High n-pow individuals become more highly activated when
supervising others than low n-pow individuals (Fodor, 1984). High
power motivated males report that they have more arguments, play
competitive sports more, have less stable interpersonal relations,
favor more assertive foreign policies, experience more emotional
problems, and are more impulsively aggressive than less power
motivated males (McClelland, 1985a, b). Such individuals are more
self-aggrandizing. The strive to be assertive and collect symbols
of power and prestige such as expensive cars and electronic
equipment. They surround themselves with lesser known people who
can be dominated and they frequently call attention to themselves
(Winter, 1973). Further, they describe their role in friendship
episodes in terms of opportunities to be dominant and controlling
(McAdams, Healy, & Krause, 1982). In comparison to low n-pow
individuals, high n-pow individuals are more assertive, less
cooperative, more deceitful, and more exploitive of others
(Terhune, 1968a, b); evaluate others as more negative (Watson,
1974); and see themselves as more rebellious, resentful, sulky,
cynical, and bitter (Gough & Heilbrun, 1975).
Thus the need for power appears to be a good candidate for use
as an explanatory variable and a predictor of personalized CL,
especially under conditions in which this need is aroused and
behaviorally activated. There is also evidence that the need for
power, in conjunction with other needs, may be implicated in
socialized as well as personalized CL. We now turn to a discussion
of empirical evidence which bears on this possibility.
The leadership Motive Pattern
In a discussion of leadership, McClelland (1985) argued that
high n-pow, in combination with a low affiliative need and high
activity inhibition, predisposes individuals to be effective
leaders. McClelland referred to this need pattern as the Leadership
Motive Pattern (LMP). Activity inhibition is defined as an
unconscious motive to use social influence, or to satisfy the power
need, in socially desirable ways, for the betterment of the
collective rather than for personal self-interest. McClelland et
al. (1972) found that mens expressions of n-pow in TAT stories
varied qualitatively, depending on whether the individual was high
or low in activity inhibition. Men low in activity inhibition had
power thoughts much more focused on personal dominance or winning
at someone elses expense. However, for men scoring high on activity
inhibition, power imagery was more often stated in terms of doing
good for others, for humanity, or for some worthy and presumably
moral cause.
-
96 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 3 No. 2 1992
According to McClelland (1985), individuals who are high on
n-pow and also high on activity inhibition should make more
effective managers, especially if n-pow is greater than the need
for affiliation. McClelland reasoned that n-pow is an appropriate
motive for meeting the role demands of positions of influence such
as those found in large complex organizations. He also argued that
because the LMP includes a low affiliative need, this combination
of needs allow an individual to remain socially distant from
subordinates and, therefore, to be more objective with respect to
resource allocation, delegation, and discipline. Individuals with a
high affiliative need are assumed to manage on the basis of
personal relationships and favoritism and to be unwilling to
monitor or discipline subordinates. Further, McClelland argued that
individuals with the LMP enjoy work involving the exercise of power
because it enables them to be in control.
The LMP theory enjoys considerable empirical support. The
combination of high n-pow, high activity inhibition, and low need
for affiliation has been shown to be predictive of leader
effectiveness and success in a number of studies including a cross-
sectional study of middle managers (McClelland & Burnham, 1976)
and longitudinal studies of entry-level managers (McClelland &
Boyatzis, 1982) naval officers (Winter, 1987) and U.S. presidents
(House et al., 1991). This combination of needs has also been shown
to be predictive of socially responsible behavior of adults over a
IO-year period (Winter, McClelland, & Stewart, 1982).
Of particular interest with respect to the prediction of
personalized versus socialized leadership, is the role of activity
inhibition in regulating and constraining the socially undesirable
effects manifested by high n-pow individuals. As the above studies
show, activity inhibition in conjunction with the n-pow is indeed
predictive of managerial success, charisma, and effectiveness in a
number of studies. Further, this measure is also associated with
expressions of altruistic intent, respect for institutionalized
authority, self-discipline, and belief in a just world in TAT
stories (McClelland et al., 1972), and with socially responsible
behavior of adults. High n-pow individuals who are low on activity
inhibition have strong tendencies for heavy drinking. However, high
n-pow individuals who are also high on activity inhibition show no
unusual inclination to consume alcohol (McClelland, 1985).
The above review suggests that individuals with a high need for
power and low activity inhibition will exhibit personalized
behavior as their dominant mode of leadership and that leaders with
a high need for power and high activity inhibition will exhibit
socialized behavior as their dominant mode of leadership.
There are three additional well developed and validated measures
of individual traits to engage in exploitive use of power. These
are the Machiavellianism scale (Christie & Geis, 1970), the
Narcissism Personality Inventory (Raskin & Hall, 1979) and the
Right Wing Authoritarianism Scale (Altemeyer, 1981). It is likely
that these measures, in interaction with the need for power, or
used independently, will be predictors of personalized and
socialized CL. In the following three sections we briefly summarize
the empirical research relevant to each of these traits.
Machiavellianism
Machiavellianism, as conceived by Christie and Geis (1970)
refers to an individual disposition to maximize ones self-interest
at the expense of others by use of
-
Personality and Charismatic Leadership 97
manipulation and deceit. Accordingly, individuals who score high
on Machiavellianism, as measured by Mach IV or Mach V scales
(Christie & Geis, 1970) are described as exhibiting the Cool
Syndrome and individuals who score low on Machiavellianism are
described as being a Soft Touch. The cool syndrome of the high Mach
is characterized by resistance to social influence, orientation to
task-related cognitions rather than to emotional or moral
involvement with others, and a strong tendency to initiate and
control interactions with others. In contrast, the soft touch
syndrome of the low Maths is characterized by susceptibility to
social influence, orientation to others that results in a tendency
to be distracted by affective, nontask related interpersonal
considerations, and acceptance of control and structure initiated
by others.
Empirical research has generally supported the description of
high Maths as possessing the cool syndrome (Christie & Geis,
1970; Drory & Gluskinos, 1980; Epstein, 1969; Geis, Krupat,
& Berger, 1965; Harris, 1966; Hegarty & Sims, 1979; Huber
& Neale, 1987; Oksenberg, 1968; Rim, 1966; Weinstein,
Beckhouse, Blumstein, & Stein, 1968). The characteristic cool
syndrome of the high Maths is exhibited under competitive
conditions that (a) allow face-to-face interactions between high
Maths and others, (b) allow latitude for improvisation of both
content and timing of responses to the task and to other people,
and (c) are likely to induce irrelevant affectin situations that
permit considerations that can interfere with manipulative behavior
and effective bargaining (Christie & Geis, 1970). Low Maths
experience affective arousal in such situations while high Maths
remain cool.
Machiavellianism might easily be interpreted as a highly
power-oriented disposition. However, this is likely an erroneous
interpretation of this trait. Rather, Machiavellianism is a strong
tendency to be amoral in the pursuit of ones self-interest.
Naturally, this may be reflected in the pursuit and exercise of
power when power serves the self-interest of the individual
involved.
Given that personalized CLs manipulate and dominate others for
their own self- interest, it seems likely that they would exhibit
Machiavellian behavior when it is in their interest to do so. In
contrast, socialized CLs who exercise power in a nonexploitive
manner for collective interests would theoretically be expected to
exhibit a low level of Machiavellian behavior. These findings
suggest that under competitive conditions that allow face-to-face
interaction, latitude for improvisation, and arousal of irrelevant
affect, Machiavellianism will be positively associated with
personalized CL behavior.
Narcissism
There is a substantial amount of empirical evidence relevant to
the narcissistic personality trait. The Narcissistic Personality
Inventory (NPI) (Raskin & Hall, 1979) has been used rather
widely, and almost all of the findings based on this self-report
scale have been replicated using observation of subjects by others.
The construction of the NPI was based on the following criteria: an
inflated sense of self-importance and uniqueness; preoccupation
with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty,
status, prestige and superiority; expectations of special favors
without reciprocation; seeking admiration and attention from
others; interpersonal exploitiveness; lack of empathy; inability to
tolerate criticism; indifference toward others; and relationships
that
-
98 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 3 No. 2 1992
alternate between extremes of overidealization and devaluation,
The NPI has been demonstrated to be a valid and reliable
self-report inventory of narcissism (Emmons, 1981, 1984, 1987;
Raskin, 1980; Raskin& Hall, 1979,1981; Raskin&Terry, 1988).
Factor analysis of NPI responses of two large samples of college
students produced four separate factors labelled:
exploitivenessientitlement; leadership/ authority; superiority/
arrogance; and self-absorption/self-~miration (Emmons, 1984,
1987).
There are several reasons to believe that narcissism might be a
personality characteristic of personalized CLs. First, narcissism
is strongly correlated with several personality scales that measure
individual self-confidence, freedom from depression, (Raskin,
Novacek, & Hogan, 1991) self-perceptions of social adjustment
and freedom from social anxiety (Emmons, 1984) capacity for status
(Gough, 1988), and social assertiveness (Raskin & Terry, 1988).
Since charismatic leaders are theoretically highly self-confident
and confident in the moral righteousness of their beliefs (House,
1977) and have also been demonstrated empirically to be more
self-confident (House et al., 1991; Howell & Higgins, 1990b;
Smith, 1982), both logic and evidence converge to suggest that
narcissism might be a characteristic of some charismatic
leaders.
However, narcissism is also a personality syndrome that includes
many dispositions and behavioral characteristics of personalized
leadership. NPI scores have been found to be positively correlated
with Machiavellianism (Biscardi & &hill, 1985), generalized
anger and hostile responses (McCann & Biaggio, 1989),
disinhibition, susceptibility to boredom, experience seeking
(Emmons, 198 l), need for power as measured by the TAT (Carroll,
1987), exhibitionism, aggression, and extraversion (Emmons, 1984),
competitiveness and tendencies to be managerial and autocratic,
aggressive, and sadistic (Raskin & Terry, 1988). Further, the
NPI has been found to be negatively associated with two
dispositions that are generally positive and supportive of others:
empathy (Watson, Grisham, Trotter, & Biderman, 1984) and
intrinsic religious values which are indicative of transcending
self-centered needs (Emmons, 1981). It is interesting to note that
narcissistic persons repress or deny their more personally
offensive characteristics (Emmons 1984; Raskin & Novacek,
1989).
Collectively, the narcissistic findings are quite frightening.
They describe individuals who are capable of being extremely
charming and manipulative and extremely cruel to others. Such
individuals appear to be willing to use their charm to engage in
cruel and punitive behavior whenever it is in their self-interest
to do so. Further, narcissists appear to experience little
self-doubt or psychological disturbance as a result of their
behavior.
Personality psychologists do not consider narcissism a
psychological disorder, except in the extreme, as the narcissists
themselves experience little anxiety, guilt, or other forms of
psychological disturbance. While narcissists very likely cause
serious pain and disturbance in others, they are best characterized
as carriers of psychological problems rather than individuals who
experience such problems. These findings suggest that narcissistic
leaders are very likely to engage in personalized CL behavior as
their dominant mode of leading.
Authoritarianism
Altemeyer (1981) developed a theory of authoritarian personality
and a scale referred to as Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA). Over
a 15-year program of research,
-
Personality and Charismatic Leadership 99
Altemeyer has demonstrated that his measure of RWA meets the
conventional requirements of construct validity and is predictive
of attitudes and behaviors theoretically assumed to be associated
with the authoritarian personality syndrome.
This syndrome is theoretically defined as a motivational
syndrome consisting of the following three attitudinal
clusters:
1. Authoritarian submission-a high degree of submission to the
authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in
the society in which one lives.
2. Authoritarian aggression-a general aggressiveness that is
perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities, directed
against selective, usually lower status persons.
3. Conventionalism-a high degree of adherence to the social
conventions that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its
established authorities (Altemeyer, 1981, p. 2).
These attitudinal clusters refer to a tendency to respond in the
same general way toward authority, lower status others, and
established social conventions. Altemeyer found evidence of strong
covariation among these three clusters based on factor analyses. He
then analyzed the relationships between each of the three subscales
and a number of criterion variables used to measure the degree to
which subjects responses indicated authoritarian behavior. Persons
who score high on the RWA scale were found to engage in a wide
range of behaviors consistent with Altemeyers theory including
tendencies to be ethnocentric and bigoted toward minorities,
punitive toward lower status individuals, and accepting of illegal
acts done by government officials to harass and intimidate their
opponents. High RWAs compared to low RWAs administered higher
levels of electrical shock to another in an experimental
mock-learning situation as a punishment for having chosen the wrong
answers; chose higher sentences to be imposed on gay
counter-demonstrators as compared to anti-gay demonstrators; and
were more intolerant of ambiguity and more aggressive. They also
did not realize, recognize, or admit their aggressive tendencies
and intolerance of ambiguity.
The above review suggests that CLs who are highly authoritarian
exhibit personalized leader behavior as their dominant mode of
leadership, and individuals who are nonauthoritarian exhibit
socialized leader behavior as their dominant leadership mode.
Efficacy Expectations, Self-Confidence, and locus of Control
One of the individual antecedents to behavior is an individuals
efficacy expectations. Individuals who are confident in the
efficacy of their behavior are more likely to take action than
those who are not (Bandura, 1986). There are two personality traits
that affect efficacy expectations: individual self-esteem and locus
of control. Self-esteem and locus of control are hypothesized to
determine, in significant part, whether an individual will have
confidence in his or her ability to induce others to comply.
According to Subjective Expected Utility Theory (Kipnis, 1976;
Tedeschi, Schlenker, & Lindskold, 1972), a leaders choice of
influence tactics depends, in significant part, on the degree to
which the leader expects others to comply. Accordingly, the greater
the resistance expected, the more the leader will rely on harsh,
coercive, or manipulative tactics. Thus,
-
100 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 3 No. 2 1992
if a follower is expected to comply readily, the leader will
rely on mild suggestion and rational persuasion. If the follower is
expected to resist such mild influence tactics, the leader will
employ more forceful influence tactics such as offering strong
rewards (or bribes), or making threats of punishment.
Confidence in being able to influence others is predictive of
leaderschoice of influence tactics. Kipnis (1976), in his book The
Power Holders, reviewed a number of studies that demonstrated that
when leaders lack confidence in their ability to influence others,
sanctions-whether positive or negative-are most likely to be
invoked.
Experimental studies by Goodstadt and Kipnis (1970), Rotbart
(1968), Michener and Burt (1974), and Kipnis and Cosentino (1969)
demonstrated support for Subjective Expected Utility Theory. In a
study of 103 managers, the correlation between the managers
expectations of being able to improve employee performance and the
managers endorsement of use of coercion was - .41. Thus the lower
the expectation of successful influence, the more coercion was
recommended. Managers who had low self-confidence also said that
the odds were poor that they could personally correct ineffective
performance. The correlation was .39 between ratings of
self-confidence and ratings of expectations of successful
influence. Further, Rasner (1966) analyzed the biographies and the
personalities of totalitarian and democratic political leaders.
Totalitarian leaders were more insecure in private life and lower
in self-esteem.
Finally, Goodstadt and Hjelle (1973) administered Rotters locus
of control measure to persons in a laboratory experiment. The locus
of control scale assesses ones generalized belief that ones own
behavior determines what happens to him or her, rather than chance,
or other external forces, such as other individuals, rules,
bureaucracies, nature and the like. The subjects were given access
to a wide range of means of influencing another person. The range
of means included the power to reward, to shift persons to new work
environments, to persuade, to use expert power, and to punish.
Those who saw themselves as weak and powerless, as evidenced by
their scores on the locus of control scale, selected punishing
means of influence far more frequently than persons who perceived
themselves to be powerful. Persons who believed they were powerful
attempted to produce change in the other through persuasion.
Kipnis (1976, p. 188) states that people who doubt their own
competence as a source of influence may be more likely to see
others as resisting when, in fact, such resistance may not exist at
all. Kipnis notes that psychological studies have shown that in
situations in which it is only possible to influence another by
relying on personal powers of persuasion, individuals with low
self-esteem and self-confidence do not attempt to influence others
(Hochbaum, 1954, cited in Kipnis, 1976, p. 118).
Kipnis (1976, p. 119) concluded from his research and that which
he reviewed: Thus, when a person feels of little worth, he or she
will be strongly attracted to harsh means of influence, if they are
available. Underneath this behavior is the belief that gentle means
of influence will not work since no one respects me enough to do
what I say if I only ask. He goes on to state that what is of
interest in the Goodstadt and Hjelle research is the conclusion
that, even if given a wide range of means for influencing other
persons and thereby having their objective powerlessness reduced .
. persons who have a history of experiencing lack of power will
still choose destructive forms of influence.. ..Subjective odds of
being able to influence others appear to shift to the difficult end
of the scale as feelings of self-worth decrease (Kipnis, 1976, p.
120).
-
Personality and Charismatic Leadership 101
Collectively, these findings suggest that: (a) the more internal
the beliefs and the higher the self-esteem of a leader, the higher
the efficacy expectations of the leader with respect to his or her
ability to induce compliance through supportive and rational
influence tactics; (b) the more external the beliefs and the lower
the self-esteem of the leader, the lower the efficacy expectations
with respect to his or her ability to induce compliance through
rational and supportive tactics; and (c) individuals with high
efficacy expectations will choose rational and supportive influence
methods and individuals with low efficacy expectations will choose
manipulative and coercive influence tactics. Thus, socialized CLs
will likely have internal beliefs and high self-esteem and
personalized CLs will likely have external beliefs and low
self-esteem.
IMPLICATIONS OF PERSONALIZED CLs IMPACT ON FOLLOWERS AND
ORGANIZATIONS
Given the personality characteristics of personalized CLs
specified above, several implications can be drawn about their
relationship with, and impact on, followers as well as their
consequences for organizations and society.
By force of their overwhelming persuasive powers and authority,
personalized CLs may evoke feelings of obedience or loyal
submission in followers. Graham (1988) calls this phenomenon
habituated followership: followers embrace their subordinate status
so completely that failure to comply with the leaders request is
unthinkable. Thus, in contrast to socialized leaders, personalized
leaders undermine the development of followers self-responsibility,
self-initiative and self-control.
It is interesting to speculate on the psychological relationship
that exists between personalized CLs and their followers. It
appears that followers are initially attracted to such leaders
based on the appeal of the leaders vision. Such visions usually
imply a better state of existence for followers if they become
committed to the leaders movement. Further, participation in the
movement gives intrinsic meaning to the life of followers:
something to live for, to be a part of, and to contribute to, in an
intrinsically satisfying and meaningful way. (See Shamir, House and
Arthur 119921, for a more detailed discussion of how charismatic
leaders appeal to the self-concept and intrinsic motivation of
followers.)
However, with time and close association with the personalized
CL, many of the immediate followers may become suspicious of the
leaders motives, but remain committed to the initial reason
forjoining the charismatic movement. This psychological state of
affairs results in lingering devotion to the leader together with
suspicion and fear of the leaders disapproval and possibly fear of
physical or psychological harm from the leader. Thus, some
immediate followers may eventually defect from the movement. To
prevent such defections, the leader then turns to the use of threat
and punishment, personal disapproval, threat of social
ostracization, and even threat of physical harm, if it is within
the leaders means. While these notions are speculative, it appears
that this cycle of events has occurred with respect to the
followers of Benito Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, Jim Jones, and Fidel
Castro.
What appears to be equally interesting, is that the remote
followers of such leaders either do not become disenchanted with
the leader and the movement, or do so long after the immediate
followers become disenchanted. This is likely because the
immediate
-
LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 3 No. 2 1992
followers have first-hand observation of the leader over a
considerable period of time, while the remote followers have little
direct contact with the leader.
The consequence of this scenario is that followers who are
initially attracted to leaders on the basis of identification,
devotion, and love eventually must be managed by the leader in
extremely coercive ways such as threat of imprisonment, physical
punishment, or execution. Thus, personalized CL, if left unbridled,
can have severe detrimental, even disastrous, consequences for
followers.
We further contend that when personalized CLs emerge into, or
are placed in, positions of leadership within organizations there
is grave danger that the power accompanying such positions will be
used primarily for the self-aggrandizement of the leader, to the
detriment of others. Kipnis (1976) has shown convincingly through
laboratory experiments, management simulations, and field research,
that there are strong forces that tempt those in power to see
themselves as superior to others whom they lead and to deal with
followers in harsh and even inhumane ways when the followers
disagree with the leaders wishes. He refers to the process by which
leaders adopt such attitudes and behaviors as the metamorphic
effect of the possession of power.
Hodgkinson (1983) argues that since charisma may have either
beneficial or malevolent effects, we need to first understand the
charismatic phenomenon and beware of its consequences. What, then,
can be done to harness the positive forces of charisma without
destroying its potential for social gain? The answer appears to lie
in the kind of preventative mechanisms that will serve to prevent
followers from entering into relationships with leaders in which
the followers are willing to engage in blind obedience, against
their own moral values and judgement, to gain the approval of
leaders.
To address the possibility of abuse of power by such individuals
requires society-wide norms, laws, and institutional constraints
such as checks and balances on the exercise of personalized power.
Norms and laws that enforce democracy, openness or full disclosure
of activities and their effects, and removal or control of such
leaders are required. While such norms and laws are available in
the United States and in most democratic societies, these are
insufficient to completely prevent the emergence of such leaders
and their consequences. Examples are plentiful: the anonymous
leaders of the Ku Klux Klan; the founder and leader of est, Werner
Erhard; the religious cult led by Jim Jones; and the abuse of power
by numerous corporate and political executives. Since legislation
is not completely adequate for the task, another source of
prevention and remedy is awareness of the personalized charismatic
phenomenon and preparation of members of the society to recognize
and resist following the orders of personalized leaders in crimes
of obedience.
CONCLUSION
The above review of empirical evidence rather clearly shows that
there are personality traits that are very likely to be antecedents
of charismatic leadership. There are important implications of
these findings. First, CLs may be identified and selected on the
basis of psychological assessment. Second, several personality
traits are likely to be associated with, and predictive of,
personalized and socialized CL. Third, leadership training,
management development efforts, role modelling by leaders, and
career counseling efforts directed at changing leader behavior need
to be designed with consideration given to the personality traits
of the individuals involved.
-
Personality and Charismatic Leadership 103
It is advocated by some leadership scholars that training
managers to develop CL behaviors will improve their personal
effectiveness, enhance followers motivation, and facilitate the
attainment of organizational objectives (Bass, 1985; Conger &
Kanungo, 1988). Others have questioned whether it is morally
defensible to train CL behaviors (Roberts & Bradley, 1988). We
have argued in this paper that charisma may be used for
manipulative and self-seeking purposes, ultimately leading to the
deception and exploitation of followers. Thus, prior to embarking
on training efforts, it is essential to develop appropriate
selection criteria for candidates such that the probability of
socially desirable and functional effects on followers,
organizations, and society are increased and deleterious effects
are minimized.
Research concerning individual characteristics and
organizational conditions that enhance the efficacy of leadership
development efforts is clearly required. It is doubtful that
individuals who are motivated by uninhibited power needs, and
characterized by narcissism, authoritarianism, Machiavellianism,
low self-esteem and external locus of control will respond
positively to such training.
To conclude, in this paper we have reviewed the theory and
empirical evidence relevant to individual characteristics
associated with charismatic leadership. We hope that this review
will stimulate practitioners to seriously consider their own
leadership behaviors, and design organizational settings and
interventions to minimize the occurrence of personalized CL.
Further, we hope that this review will stimulate the further
development of theory and encourage empirical research relevant to
the exercise of CL.
REFERENCES
Abramson, L. & D. Martin. (1981). Depression and the causal
inference process. In J. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. Kidd (Eds.),
New directions in attribution research (pp. 117-168). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg:
University of Manitoba Press. Ashour, A.S. & G. Johns. (1983).
Leader influence through operant principles: A theoretical
and methodological framework. Human Relations 36, 603-626.
Avolio, B.J. & B.M. Bass. (1988). Transformational leadership,
charisma, and beyond. In J.G.
Hunt, B.R. Baliga, H.P. Dachler & C.A. Schriesheim (Eds).,
Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 2949). Lexington, MA: D.C.
Heath.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A
social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barnlund, D.C. (1962). Consistency of emergent leadership in
groups with changing tasks and members. Speech Monographs
29,45-52.
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond
expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B.M. (1988). Evolving
perspectives on charismatic leadership. In J.A. Conger and R.A.
Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in
organizational effectiveness (pp. 40-77). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Bennis, W. & B. Nanus. (1985). Gaders: The strategies for
taking charge. New York: Harper & Row.
Biscardi, D. & T. Schill. (1985). Correlations of
narcissistic traits with defensive style, Machiavellianism, and
empathy. Ps_vchoIogical Reports 57, 354.
-
104 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 3 No. 2 1992
Borgatta, E.F., A.S. Couch, & R.F. Bales. (1954). Some
findings relevant to the great man theory of leadership. American
Sociological Review 19, 755-759.
Bouchard, D.T., Jr., D.T. Lykken, M. McGue, N.L. Segal, & A.
Tellegen. (1990). Sources of human psychological differences: The
Minnesota study of twins reared apart. Science, 2230-2250.
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Carroll, L. (1987). A study of narcissism, affiliation, intimacy,
and power motives among students
in business administration. Psychological Reports 6 1, 355-358.
Christie, R. & F.L. Geis. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism.
New York: Academic Press. Clover, W.H. (1988). Transformational
leaders: Team performance, leadership ratings and first
hand impressions. In K.E. Clark & M.B. Clark (Eds.),
Measures of leadership. West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of
America.
Conger, J.A. & R.N. Kanungo. (1987). Toward a behavioral
theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings.
Academy of Management 22, 637-647.
Conger, J.A. & R.N. Kanungo. (1988). Training charismatic
leadership: A risky and critical task. In J.A. Conger & R.N.
Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership, the elusive factor in
organizational effectiveness (pp. 309-323). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Curphy, G.J. (1990). An empirical evaluation of Bass (1985)
theory of transformational and transactional leadership.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Psychology,
University of Minnesota.
Davidson, R.J., C. Saron, & D.C. McClelland. (1980). Effects
of personality and semantic content of stimuli on augmenting and
reducing in the event-related potential. Biological Psychology 11,
249-255.
DePree, M. (1989). Leadership is an art. New York: Dell. Drory,
A. & U.M. Gluskinos. (1980). Machiavellianism and leadership.
Journal of Applied
Psychology 65, 8 l-86. Emmons, R.A. (1981). Relationship between
narcissism and sensation seeking. Psychological
Reports 48, 241-250. Emmons, R.A. (1984). Factor analysis and
construct validity of the narcissistic personality
inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment 48, 291-300.
Emmons, R.A. (1987). Narcissism: Theory and measurement. Journal of
Personality and Social
Psychology 52, 1 I-17. Epstein, G.F. (1969). Machiavelli and the
devils advocate. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 1, 38-41. Evans, M.G. (1970). The effects of
supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 5, 277-298. Fodor,
E.M. (1984). The power motive and reactivity to power stresses.
Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 47, 853-859. Fodor, E.M. & D.L.
Farrow. (1979). The power motive as an influence on use of power.
Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 37, 2091-2097. Fodor, E.M.
& T. Smith. (1982). The power motive as an influence on group
decision making.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42, 178-185. Geis,
F.L., E. Krupat, & D. Berger. (1965). Taking over in group
discussion. Unpublished
manuscript, New York University. Goodstadt, B.E. & L.A.
Hjelle. (1973). Power to the powerless: Locus of control and the
use
of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 27,
190-196. Goodstadt, B.E. & D. Kipnis. (1970). Situational
influences on the use of power. Journal of
Applied Psychology 54, 201-207. Gough, H.G. (1988). Manual for
the Calzforniu psychological inventory (3rd ed.). Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
-
Personality and Charismatic Leadership 105
Gough, H.G. & A.B. Heilbrun, Jr. (1975). The adjective
checklist manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Graen, G. & J.F. Cashman. (1975). A role-making model of
leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. In
J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers (pp.
143-165). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.
Graham, J.W. (1988). Transformational leadership: Fostering
follower autonomy, not automatic followership. In J.G. Hunt, B.R.
Baliga, H.P. Dachler, & C.A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging
leadership vistas (pp. 73-79). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Harris, T.M. (1966). Machiavellianism, judgemenr, independence
and attitudes toward teammate in a cooperative judgement task.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University.
Hegarty, W.H. & H.P. Sims, Jr. (1979). Organizational
philosophy, policies, and objectives related to unethical decision
behavior: A laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology
64, 331-338.
Higgins, E., R. Klein, Kc T. Strauman. (1985). Self-concept
discrepancy theory: A psychological model for distinguishing among
different aspects of depression and anxiety. Social Cognition 3, 5
l-76.
Hodgkinson, C. (1983). 7i?e philosophy of leadership. New York:
St. Martins Press. Hogan, R., R. Raskin, & D. Fazzini. (1990).
The dark side of charisma. In K.E. Clark & M.B.
Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 343-354). West Orange,
NJ: Leadership Library of America.
Hollander, E.P. (1964). Leaders, groups, and influence. New
York: Oxford University Press. House, R.J. (1971). A path goal
theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly
16, 321-338. House, R.J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic
leadership. In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.),
Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale, IL:
Southern Illinois University Press.
House, R.J. & M.L. Baetz. (1979). Leadership: Some empirical
generalizations and new research directions. Research in
Organizational Behavior 10, 341-423.
House, R.J. & B. Shamir. (1992). Toward the integration of
transformational, charismatic and visionary theories. Working
paper, Department of Management, Wharton School of the University
of Pennsylvania.
House, R.J., W.D. Spangler, & J. Woycke. (1991). Personality
and charisma in the U.S. presidency: A psychological theory of
leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly 36,
364-396.
Howell, J.M. (1988). Two faces of charisma: Socialized and
personalized leadership in organizations. In J.A. Conger & R.A.
Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in
organizational effectiveness (pp. 213-236). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Howell, J.M. & B.J. Avolio. (1992). The ethics of
charismatic leadership: Submission of liberation? Academy of
Management Executive 6,43-54.
Howell, J.M. & C.A. Higgins. (1990a). Champions of
technological innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35, 3
17-34 1.
Howell, J.M. & CA. Higgins. (1990b). Leadership behaviors,
influence tactics, and career experiences of champions of
technological innovation. Leadership Quarterly 1, 249-264.
Howell, J.M. & R.J. House. (1992). Socialized and
personalized charisma: An essay on the bright and dark sides of
leadership. Unpublished manuscript, Western Business School,
University of Western Ontario.
Huber, V.L. & M.A. Neale. (1987). Effects of self and
competitor goals on performance in an interdependent bargaining
task. Journal of Applied Psychology 72, 197-203.
Isen, A., B. Mans, R. Patrick, & G. Nowicki. (1982). Some
factors influencing decision-making strategy and risk taking.In M.
Clark & S. Fiske (Eds.), Affect and cognition: 7he 17th annual
Carnegie symposium on cognition (pp. 243-262). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
-
106 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 3 No. 2 1992
Kenny, D.A. & S.J. Zaccaro. (1983). An estimate of variance
due to traits in leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology 68,
678-685.
Kipnis, D. (1976). Thepowerholders. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. Kipnis, D. & J. Cosentino. (1969). Use of
leadership powers in industry. Journal of Applied
Psychology 53, 460-466. Locke, E.A. & G.P. Latham. (1990). A
theory of goalsetting and taskperformance. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Lord, R.G., C.L. De Vader, & G.M.
Alliger. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between
personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of
validity and generalization procedures. Journal of Applied
Psychology 7 1,402-4 10.
Mann, R.D. (1959). A review of the relationships between
personality and performance in small groups. Psychological Bulletin
56, 241-270