transformation lead miller

7/30/2019 Transformation Lead Miller

1/14

tfviews

Transformational Leadershipand Mutuality

Mary Miller

Dr Mary Miller is a member of the board of Jubilee Campaign, USA, and President of Women

Mentoring at Work, a non-profit organization for women in the workplace.

AbstractWhat does leadership research and literature have to say about the mutuality of transforming lead-ers, and is being transforming synonymous with being charismatic? Transforming leadership andcharismatic leadership are two distinct and different theories in the field of leadership research,so understanding the distinctive between these theories is essential. Importantly, the definition ofcharismatic leaders within a church context is completely different from use of the term withinleadership research. The discussion thus identifies the conceptual basis for the term charismaticleadership within leadership research. The conceptual basis of transforming leadership withintheory provides a frame from which mutuality between the leader and others can be understood.

IntroductionThere is tremendous relevance and importance inidentifying the influence processes used in mutu-ality by transforming (transformational) leadersin their interpersonal approach towards others;that is, within the dyad relationship between the

leader and their respective employees, colleagues,bosses, followers, etc. When a leader is intentional-ly transformational, there are specific behavioursthat evidence mutuality in the interpersonal rela-tionship between the leader and others. Under-standing these behaviours, known as influenceprocesses, provides leaders who are seeking to betransformational in their interpersonal approachtowards others with valuable insight into theirown behaviour; as well as providing followerswith far greater understanding of their leader.

In order to discuss the mutuality betweentransformational leadership and others, firstthe conceptual basis of transformational leader-ship must be provided. The conceptual basis fordescribing and defining transforming leaders pro-vides the basis for the discussion of mutuality. Themajor point of clarification in conceptualizing oftransforming leadership is to distinguish betweentransforming leadership and charismatic leader-ship, differentiating the leaders focus, goals, andprocess.

The discussion to follow will aim to bring

clarification between charismatic leadership andtransforming leadership by specifically address-ing differences in the respective leaders self-per-ceptions and persona, which is how the leaderpresents her/himself to others. Understandingthe self-perception of the leader will be shown

to have been provided by understanding thedifferent influence processes the leader evi-dences towards the follower. The identificationof influence processes leads to identifying andunderstanding mutuality in transforming leadersinterpersonal relationship with others.

Briefly, an overview is provided of how thefield of leadership theorists perceive charismaticleadership in order to draw to the readers atten-tion the negative perceptions that are increasing-ly and often associated with the use of the termcharismatic leadership within leadership research.Consequently, use of the term charismatic leader-ship without a detailed qualification of what thatterm means can potentially be miscommunica-tion to leadership theorists, as well as to the aver-age reader. Terminology can not be presumed ordismissed.

Charismatic Leadership versusTransforming Leadership

The research literature has not reached agree-

180 Transformation 24/3 & 4 July & October 2007 TranSformaTional leaderShiPand muTualiTy


2/14

tfviews

ment on the differences between the charismaticand transforming leadership paradigms. A numberof researchers have lumped charismatic withtransformational leadership (Behling & McFillen,1996; Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Pielstick, 1998;Fiol et al, 1999; Den Hartog et al., 1999). Others

have focused on transformational leadership asa unique paradigm in its own right (Burns, 1978;Shamir, 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1997; Conger, 1999;

Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2001). Hunt andCongers assessment of the field, in their research-ing charismatic and transforming leadership, con-clude that, there needs to be more differentiationthan there has typically been in the use of the twoterms (Hunt & Conger, 1999, p. 340).

Recent analysis chronicling the history ofresearch on transforming and charismatic leadersby Conger (1999) who originally lumped char-ismatic with transforming leaders allows for thetwo paradigms of transformation and charisma ashaving significant differences, and consequentlyidentified as being two separate theories. Congernotes that the differences are in the influenceprocess. The influence process has a great deal todo with the persona, from which self-concept andself-identity emerge with potentially significantlydifferent goals being valued by the leader.

Some of the reasoning for researching trans-formational leaders as a distinct paradigm centres

on the idea that transformational leaders have dif-ferent expressions of persona than charismaticleader. An individuals persona is the public repre-sentation of the identity of self, our, psychologicalskin (Jones & Butman, 1991, p. 123). The defini-tion of persona is linked to the self-concept ofthe individual, and thus can be paralleled to thepersonal constructs1 of the person, rather thanthe archetypal representation that is sometimesassociated with use of this term. The differencesof persona is a seminal distinctive between trans-formational and charismatic leadership, indicat-

ing that the two theories are distinct paradigms.If the persona of the two leadership approachesis different, then the values and behaviour willalso reflect differences. There will a difference infocus, and a difference in process; consequently,there will be a difference of influence processtowards followers.

Charismatic Leadership: WeberThe theory of charismatic leadership that emergedlast century (1900s) came from Webers (1947)

borrowing of the term charisma from the NewTestament, where it is referred to as an imparta-tion of the Holy Spirit as a gift from God as indi-

viduals committed their lives to Jesus (Bryman,1992).2 Weber took the concept of charisma andapplied this to some leaders within society out-side of the church. He coined the term charis-matic leadership and gave it a multi-dimensional,somewhat confusing and contradictory meaning,both good and bad (Bryman, 1992). While appre-ciating Webers substantive contribution to sociol-ogy, his theorizing on charismatic leadership hasnot been clearly understood by many leadershiptheorists (Bryman, 1992).

Commentators on and users of Webers writ-ings on charisma have invariably disagreed

wildly over the meaning, content and potential

of the concept. This tendency can be attribut-ed largely to the nature of Webers writings onthe subject. They are highly diffuse, sometimescontradictory, and often more suggestive of

what is interesting and important in charismathan a definitive exposition. Indeed, if thereis one thing over which writers on charismatend to agree, it is that Weber provided a high-ly stimulating but frustratingly abstruse discus-sion (Bryman, 1992, p. 23).

Weber described charismatic leaders as repre-senting themselves endowed with special power,

but essentially an unstable force that emergedin times of stress. Swindlers study of charismat-ic leaders showed the need for the charismaticleader to engage in, exaggerated personal eccen-tricities, and worked to appear unpredictable andmysterious (Bryman, 1992 citing Swindler, 1979,p. 76). From the idea of being endowed by God

with special talent, as it was originally understoodfrom the Bible, the emerging conceptualizing ofthe charismatic leader was identified as one whotook it upon him or herself to convince othersthat their talents were indeed supernatural insome way.

Influence Process of CharismaticLeadership

There is agreement in the literature concerningone specific aspect in how charismatic leadershipis defined; specifically, on the importance of theaspect of the persona of the charismatic leaderbeing larger then life, as originally suggested by

Weber in much of the literature (Weber, 1947;

TranSformaTional leaderShiPand muTualiTy Transformation 24/3 & 4 July & October 2007 181


3/14

tfviews

Bryman, 1992; House, 1995; Sosik & Dworakio-vsky, 1998; Conger, 1999; Jacobsen, 2001). Char-ismatic leader takes time to enhance how theyare perceived so they receive recognition fromfollowers. This is because the charismatic leaderis seeking for an emotional appeal, so his or her

aura is the deciding factor of being a charismat-ic leader (Weber, 1947; House, 1977; Conger &Kanungo, 1988; Behling & McFillen, 1996; Shamir,1998; Grint, 2002). It is through and from the useof emphasizing their personhood and their giftsthat the charismatic leader has impact on the fol-lower.

Conger & Kanungo (1988) link attribution the-ory with charismatic leadership, which indicatesthe paradigm of charismatic leadership, accordingto Conger, is one of perception of the follower.There is ongoing discussion regarding the leaderhaving actual (genuine) or attributed qualities ora mixture of both (Beyer, 1999). Conger (1999)outlines the four motivational outcomes from thechanges in followers self-concepts. These includethe way the follower perceives work, vision, iden-tity with others, and sense of collective.

Argyle and Colman (1999) describe charis-matic leaders as those who form strong bondsemotionally with their followers, but they statethat the way this bond is established has notbeen adequately addressed. The strong link withemotions suggests that attribution theory mightbe the link with charismatic leadership. Centralto the definition of charismatic leadership is theperception that the leader is exceptional in some

way, and the charismatic leader has the ability tomake followers believe in them. The belief in thecharismatic leader is the main means of impactand influence on the follower.

The followers perception of influence proc-esses differentiates between transforming andcharismatic leadership. The follower will iden-tify different processes, depending on the per-

ceptions that come from leadership interaction,which are influence processes identified in spe-cific behaviours. The follower will perceive theinfluence process as mainly one of charisma forthe charismatic leader. It is the followers belief inthe leader because of the charisma of the leaderthat is the key dynamic of influence for the fol-lower from the leader.

The charismatic leaders focus is on theirown abilities as a charismatic leader to formulate,articulate, and motivate followers to join with himor her in fulfilling the vision. This is not mutual

stimulation or elevation. It is stimulation of thefollower and elevation of the leader. The followeris stimulated to help the charismatic leader withthe vision that the charismatic leader is articulat-ing.

This can be diagrammed below:

Diagram 2:1 Charismatic Leader

VISION

^

^

^

CHARISMATIC LEADER

^

^

^

FOLLOWER(S)

As detailed earlier, charismatic leaders artic-ulate the vision and frame the perception thatthey want their followers to have in a carefullycrafted manner, seeking to highlight themselvesas extraordinary individuals. The leader uses thisapproach because the follower must go throughthe charismatic leader to have accurate percep-tion of the vision, and trying to envision the fol-lower is easier when the individual doing theenvisioning has components that the follower isin awe of. Here the onus is on the leader to appear

and perform in such a way that the follower joinsthe charismatic leaders vision.

Conger identifies his own model as coming,closest to the Webers original assertions (1947)(Conger, 1999, p. 155), and recent theory usinga dramaturgical model by Gardner and Avolio(1998) also point to charismatic leaders deliber-ately exaggerating their abilities and identity toimpress their followers. Aspects of the personaof the charismatic leader are being researchedto gain an understanding of how the process ofcharisma works within this leadership theoryfor both leader and follower. Gardner and Avoliostheory use Schlenkers (1985) identity theory asa basis for identifying the leaders identity, highself-esteem, and self-monitoring as key compo-nents for the charismatic leader. This seems a verypromising line of research in understanding char-ismatic leaders.

The organizational behaviour literaturedescribes charismatic leaders persona as possi-bly including elements of distance from followers,of achieving hero status, of narcissist personality



4/14

tfviews

tendencies, and possibly self-aggrandisement. Thepotentially and possibly inappropriately paternal-istic and destructive self-power of the charismaticleader can have negative consequences in thelife of the follower (Bryman, 1992). The powerbasis for the charismatic leader is described as,personal power (based on expert power; respectand admiration as a unique hero), with a result-ant, reverence and trust (Conger & Kanungo,1998, p. 51). The behaviours cited as charismaticby Conger and Kanungo include, passionate advo-cacy, unconventional means, strong inspirationalfuture vision, placing the onus on the leader tostir others up as the means to attain the vision

with resultant, reverence and trust for the leader(Conger & Kanungo, 1998, p. 50).

Transformational Leadership: BurnsThere is agreement in the field that Burnss con-ceptualizing of transforming leadership was semi-nal in providing a framework for understandingtransforming leaders.

The transforming leader looks for potentialmotives in followers, seeks to satisfy higherneeds, and engages the full person of the fol-lower. The result of transforming leadership isa relationship of mutual stimulation and eleva-tion that converts followers into leaders and

may convert leaders into moral agents. (Burns,1978, p. 4).

The starting point for the research in under-standing transforming leaders was Burnss (1978)in-depth historical analysis identifying transform-ing leaders as a unique phenomenon or theory

within the field of leadership research. Burnssconceptualizing of transforming leaders thrustthis paradigm into prominence. Burnss definition,quoted above, provides a definition from whichtransforming leaders behaviours and conceptuali-zations could be assessed.

Influence Process of TransformingLeadership

It is possible to understand influence proc-ess by identifying underlying processes that arebeing used. This section will identify how Boul-dings (1989) theory of love has concordance

with Burnss (1978) definition of love, and howthis association points to love understood asa power basis being an underlying process in

the leader and follower dyad with the outcome ofhaving specific influence processes used by thetransforming leader.

The clarification (of what influence processesare being used by the transforming leader) canreceive some insight from theory that articulates

the behaviours that are descriptive of influenceprocesses that are used when a leader has anorientation to love as a power base. Bouldings(1989) theory of love as integrating power identi-fies the influence process used by leaders whouse love as a power base. Because the influenceprocesses identified by Boulding (1989) have con-cordance with Burnss definition, then these influ-ence processes can be used to understand theinfluence processes of the transforming leader.

The following discussion will briefly outlineBouldings (1989) identification of love as thebasis for power, and will identify how Bouldingstheorizing can be used to understand the out-come of mutuality and power sharing in the trans-forming leader and follower relationship, whenunderstood from Burnss definition of transform-ing leadership. The implications from the discus-sion of mutuality and power sharing lead to apotential way to diagram the influence process(see Diagram 2) used by the transforming leader.

Bouldings theory of LoveBoulding identifies specific types of power thatare used by leaders within society, and identifieslove as a type of power that is used by leaders.Bouldings theorizing centres on identifying dif-ferences in types of power, and he defines poweras, in the human sense, power is a concept with-out meaning in the absence of human valuationsand human decision . . .its widest meaning is thatof a potential for change (Boulding, 1989, p. 15).It is evident that power can not exist in a vacuum,so power always has a value base, just as it is clear

that leadership has an attendant power base. Boul-ding brought the two concepts together, and iden-tified attendant power bases for leadership; onepotential power basis of the leader being love.

Boulding conceptualizes love as a form ofpower in a leader within an organization with anumber of distinctive. Boulding points out thatlove is a form of power that integrates, and is theonly form of power that is not abusive (Boulding,1989). Boulding believed that a leader who oper-ates out of a power base of love avoids the abu-sive elements that so often pervade power, and



5/14

tfviews

that love as a basis for leadership provides integra-tion. Boulding states, the most fundamental formof integrative power is the power of love (Bould-ing, 1989, p. 110), and suggests, integrative poweras the ultimate power (Boulding, 1989, p. 109).

Boulding describes integrative power in a

number of different ways in seeking to con-ceptualize how integration functions within anorganization. Boulding identifies the structure ofintegrating power as a, complex network of com-munication and learning (Boulding, 1989, p. 117).He suggests that a reciprocal dynamic is an impor-tant aspect of integrative power; that integrativepower is the enabling force within productivepower in organizations. Boulding hypothesisesthat it might be possible to learn to have integra-tive power. This would involve willingness on thepart of the leader to learn to institute processesthat would enable reciprocity between othersand him/herself.

He states that this integration, specific actionsby the leader, is the key to success within organi-zations because these actions enable the indi-

vidual to have a personal identity within theorganization (Boulding, 1989, p. 61). Importantly,he does not identify the leader being the one

with which the individual must have a personalidentity. Integration is the space that is held openfor the individual to form their own identity withthe organization, in whatever shape or form isimportant to the individual.

Bouldings concept of love as a basis of poweris tangible, not emotive, although undoubtedlythere will always be an emotive element asso-ciated with love. Boulding is describing love asaction in identifying that love is not abusive, andthat love as a power base integrates.

The definition Burns gives of transformingleadership fit the descriptors of Bouldings non-abusive and integrative power. There are strongindicators that Burnss definition alludes to the

power base of the transformational leader poten-tially being identified as love. Burnss (1978) defi-nition does not state the motivation or the basisof leadership, but the leaders inf luence process is;satisfying higher needs, mutual stimulation andelevation of followers (Burns, 1978). The use ofpower for the transforming leader is not rever-ence for the leader, but the aforementioned spaceis held open for the follower to form a personalidentity within the organization in a non-abusivemanner. The specific behaviours that are usedinclude elevation of the follower and mutual stim-

ulation. In Burnss articulation of transformationalleadership, the value base within the power basehas positive impact on individuals and commu-nity (Burns, 1978), because the outcomes of theleaders input to the follower has positive con-sequences in the life of the follower. All of thesepoints identify Burnss definition being a fit withBouldings descriptors of a power base of love forthe leader.

Bouldings theorizing might provide additionalunderstanding for distinguishing between char-ismatic and transformational leadership. If love understood as a power base is foundationalin the transforming leader, then there will be alarge difference between the charismatic leader,as defined in organizational behaviour literature,and transformational leaders.

Outcomes: Mutuality andPower Sharing

Burnss definition describes transformational lead-ers elevating followers in the process or as a proc-ess of enacting vision. The transforming leaderempowers, but Burnss definition also alludes toa mutual stimulation that elevates both followerand the leader. The aspect of mutual stimula-tion can be seen as the mutuality of the leaderand follower relationship. Burns prefers the term

transforming to the term transformational indescribing the leader because transforming cap-tures this dimension of mutual interaction, withthe implication of both leader and follower simul-taneously being transformed (Bailey, 2001). Thedimension of mutuality is an important aspect oftransformational leadership.

Mutuality is also addressed in Bouldings think-ing on power. The integration component of loveas a basis of power involves a reciprocal dynamic.Boulding believes this reciprocity enables produc-tivity within organizations.

The mutuality component, described as theability on the part of the follower to have impacton the life of the leader, and the position of thisat the very core of the definition of transformingleadership, points to the fact that this type of par-adigm differs substantively from the charismaticleader paradigm.

The transformational leader has a differentfocus, a different process, and different goals. Thiscan be diagrammed below:



6/14

tfviews

Diagram 2: Transformational Leader

VISION (leaders focus)

TRANSFORMING FOLLOWERLEADER

(leaders focus)

Process: Mutual stimulation

There are two foci for the transform-ing leader, both the follower and the vision.These are distinct and somewhat compli-mentary foci. But the distinctive here isseminal because the vision is to develop the

follower not only as a means to an end (get-ting the vision accomplished), but also asan end in itself. The leader is not doing thisdevelopment of the follower out of a senseof expediency, but because it is part of his/her vision.

Transforming leadership was conceivedby Burns as leaders who valued a learn-ing process, specifically leaders who wereable to learn from others. The fact that theleader seeks to receive from the follower,in Burnss definition, profiles the transfor-

mational leader as a learner, not the onewho has all the answers. It is this model-ling of learning that impacts the followerto perceive that they, as followers, are alsolearners and as such can enter into a freeexchange with the leader. Boulding, refer-ring to the structure of integrative power,stated that, the extent and the power of thisnetwork depends a great deal on the devel-opment of what might be called a learningidentity and a culture that puts a high valueon learning (Boulding, 1989, p. 118).

In some contexts, the vision of the trans-formational leader can be almost exclusivelyto impact the life of the follower, as Burnssdefinition suggests, and as is often the case

within an educational context in a teacherand student relationship. The emphasis onmutuality allows the follower to help frameher/his own vision as part of the overall

vision setting process, as well as impact-ing the leader to further develop the vision.This interactive process is also seminal to

fields such as social work, rehabilitation work,and development programs within communities.It may be that transformational leadership is eas-ier to implement within these contexts becausethe goal of these organization is already to fostermutual exchange.

Yukl (1998) identifies value internalisation as akey component of the influence process for trans-formational leaders. According to Yukl, the focus isnot necessarily on the leader, but the goals articu-lated as vision and mission for the organizationplay a significant role for the follower. The bondthe follower has to the organization is not neces-sarily with the leader or the characteristics of theleader, but the follower has values that align withthe organizations. This is in contrast to the charis-matic leaders focus on the appeal being him orherself.

Discussion of Differences

The process that is used by charismatic and trans-formational leader also has substantive differ-ences. The charismatic leader is the head of theshow, ultimately responsible to not only articu-late his/her vision clearly, but also gain agreementand commitment to that specific vision. The trans-forming leader has openness to follower inputand impact of the vision, which involves powersharing and participation. This is the mutual stim-ulation that Burns refers to in his definition oftransforming leaders. This approach has parallels

with Senges (1994) learning organization, whichidentifies followers and leaders as each having sig-nificant aspects of the vision that together con-stitutes the vision. The triangle above depicts thefact that both leader and follower have aspectsof the vision. The leader allows followers to influ-ence what the vision is. This does not take place

with the charismatic leader.The difference in process of the leaders

points to a difference in the self-schemas of theleaders. The openness, which the transformingleader extends to the follower that encouragesand fosters mutual stimulation, can only happenbecause of the leaders self-schema. Self-aggran-disement can not come into the picture herebecause self-aggrandisement prohibits the type offree exchange that allows for mutual stimulationto occur. In order to have an environment thatfosters mutual stimulation, the power differentialcan not be the focus of the relationship. Boulding(1989) was aware of this, and undoubtedly this



7/14

tfviews

is one of the reasons he posited that integrativepower and integrative leadership has its basis inlove.

What role does charisma play in identificationof transforming leaders? The literature on trans-formational leadership does focus on the leaderbeing a change agent, but the transforming lead-ers charisma is not the defining characteristic forthe transformational leader (Burns, 1978; Bass &

Avolio, 1997; Beyer, 1999; Alban-Metcalfe & Alimo-Metcalfe, 2000). The need to appear larger thenlife or to embellish oneself or distance oneself inorder to attain status by a charisma that is largerthen life is not characteristic of the transforma-tional leader. This charismatic aspect of personais not the major focus in describing transformingleaders. Mother Theresa and Ghandi are both cited

by Burns (1978) as being transformational leaderswho exemplify transformation, but who wouldnot fit the criteria of charismatic or charisma as

Weber (1947) defined the term. It is this very factthat led Burns to identify transformational leadersas distinct from charismatic leaders. Self-aggran-disement did not factor into and/or is not nec-essary to the transformational leaders approach.Beyers (1999) identifies the fact in her critiquepointing out House, et al.s (1991) identification ofneed for power and affiliation as central to char-ismatic leaders with both affiliation and achieve-

ment being negatively associated with the term.Beyers suggests that, Gandhi, Mandela and Moth-er Theresa probably fall short, in his eyes, on needfor power and dominance (Beyer, 1999, p. 585),but then again, Mandela and Mother Theresa werenot charismatic leaders. They were/are transfor-mational leaders.

Other examples of transformational leadersinclude Glad and Blantons (1997) analysis of DeKlerk and Mandela. Their research concluded thatcharisma was not the factor that created theenvironment for change in South Africa; ratherthey described De Klerk and Mandela as transfor-mational leaders whose characteristics includedoffering a listening ear to followers. This is dif-ferent than a larger then life personality. Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfes (2001) research also

found a component of charisma but this was notthe key factor in follower perception of trans-forming leaders. The key factor in transforma-tional leadership perception by followers in the

Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfes (2001) researchwas the Genuine Concern for Others scale. Theresearch suggests that the focus for the transfor-mational leader is not primarily on the self, butinclusive of others.

The discussion so far has shown that the lead-ers that have been identified as transforming lead-ers in the literature do not use charisma as theirmain influence process with others. The trans-forming leader does not focus on elevation of self,so the transforming leaders perception of self dif-fers from the charismatic leaders perception ofself. In other words, the persona (self-perception)

of the leaders differentiates between these theo-ries, as indicated by the difference in the influ-ence processes with the follower.

The charismatic leader is responsible for buyin of followers for the vision that s/he establish-es. The dynamic in this type of process is leaderfocused. It is the leaders responsibility to contin-ue to stimulate and envision. In contrast, the trans-forming leader operates on the assumption thatfollowers have vision and need to be able to havea context where that vision is allowed to comeforward. There is respect towards the followers

contribution to articulating the vision. This is themutuality that Burns refers to.

Bouldings theory of love is a conceptual fitwith aspects of Burnss definition of transform-ing leadership. Because love can be viewed froma base of power perspective, love can be seen asintegrative; consequently, fostering transforma-tion as an aspect of a learning environment in therelationship between leader and follower. This ledto the identification of a learning environmentbeing created with deliberation by the transform-ing leader possibly as a consequence of having aself-schema that includes Bouldings descriptionof love as one of its bases.

The discussion of themed differences betweencharismatic/heroic leaders and transforming lead-er is presented in Table 1.3



8/14

tfviews

Table 2:1 Themes/differences:

Transforming vs. Heroic/Charismatic Leader

Leader paradigm Transforming Leader Heroic/Charismatic Leader

Definition Burnss theorizing:

leader and follower reciprocal process

of empowerment

(Burns, 1978; Dvira & Shamir, 2003

acknowledge this definition in their

recent research)

Conger & Kanungos theorizing: follower

empowers leader via acquiescence to leaders

vision

(Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Dumas & Sankowsky,

1998; Jacobsen, 2001; Shamir & Howell, 2000

cited in Dvira & Shamir, 2003)

Orientation possibly servant; change agent

(Bass & Steindlmeier, 1998; Alimo-

Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2001)

hero imaging; change agent

(Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Dumas & Sankowsky,

1998; Dorian et al., 2000)

Self-schema allows mutuality (Burns, 1978; Alimo-

Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2001; 2001b)

need for control (view mutuality as

inappropriate) (Shamir et al., 1998) actors

(Gardner & Avolio, 1998)

Power Orientation shares power; power basis potentially

Bouldings definition of love as

integrating power (Miller, 2005)

Consequences: succession not as

problematic

personal power: SEA power, S symbolic is

paternal symbol, E as expertise is skills and

abilities and A as advocacy is personal appeal

and skills of persuasion

(Dumas & Sankowsky, 1998)

Consequences: succession is problematic

(Conger, 1999)

Perceptions of Success mutual elevation and stimulation;

followers become leaders; vision

fulfilment inclusive of follower and

leader vision (Burns, 1978; Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2003)

vision fulfilment by envisioning and stimulating

followers to follow leaders vision (Shamir et al.,

1998; Conger & Kanungo, 1998)

Fit across Cultures transforming leader seen in all cultures

(Den Hartog et al, 1999)

charismatic leader seen in all cultures (Den

Hartog et al., 1999)

Leader Proximity comfortable with nearby in orientation

whatever level in organization even if

top leader (Miller, 2005)

comfortable with distant usually described as

top leaders (Shamir et al., 1998)

Organizational Behaviours Research

concerning Charismatic LeadershipClearly, the discussion so far has not involved

the research examining charismatic leadership

as leaders within church contexts; those leaders

who would describe themselves as charismatic

because of their belief that the gifts of the Holy

Spirit are in evidence within the church today. It

is to those leaders specifically that the remainder

of this article is being written; to provide under-

standing of the term, as well as perceptions of the

leadership process when the term is being used

within organizational behaviour research andmuch of the business community.

The dictionary meaning of the term as anadjective within the phrase charismatic leadermeans possessing an extraordinary ability toattract, or a magnetic personality. The quality ofbeing charismatic is seen as a dimension of theindividuals personality, not a gift from God ofcharisma. This meaning has nothing whatsoeverto do with belief in the gifts of the Holy Spirit fortoday.

Context plays a part in understanding whatthe term charismatic leadership means within



9/14

tfviews

cultures (Den Hartog et al., 1999). Certain culturesperceive charismatic leadership as malevolentand potentially destructive. The Dutch, who suf-fered greatly during the war, are openly scepticalof awarding hero status to leaders (Den Hartog etal., 1999).

Organizations are increasingly calling intoquestion whether the charisma qualities of acharismatic leader are to be prized. Recent lon-gitudinal research over 10 years with a sample ofFortune 500 companies indicated that, in essence,charismatic CEOs seem able to influence theircompensation packages and stock prices but noother indicators of firm performance (Tosi etal., 2004, p. 405). Apart from influencing stockprices, the charismatic leaders did not influencefirm performance. Beyers raises the concern thatthe negative consequences of charisma are, sel-dom addressed in empirical work (Beyer, 1999,p. 583).

The term charismatic leadership has beenused by some leadership theorists to describepositive impact on society (Shamir, 2001), but thishas been the centre of much debate. The conse-quences of a charismatic leaders impact on socie-ty have a great deal to do with the ultimate motiveand agenda of the leader for good or bad (Burns,1978). Shamir, House & Arthur (1993) developeda self-concept theory of charismatic leaders thatemphasizes the leader valuing the followers ide-als as well as being impacted by the followers

willingness to be led. Shamir et al.s theory placescharismatic leaders in a positive light with thepossible emphasis suggesting some charismaticleaders have elements of altruism.

However, the picture that emerges acrossnumerous leadership theories and research is con-fusion about the term charisma or charismatic,and it is defined as either good or bad in accord-ance with the model that it represents (Conger& Kanunga, 1998). Leadership research indicates

that charisma can be used to impact others ben-eficially (as Shamir et als model suggests) orharmfully (House, 1977; Burns, 1978; Shamir, 1995;Conger & Kanunga, 1998). No one can doubt thecharismatic quality of Osama bin Laden (Kakutani,2001), or the appeal that Hitler had to a genera-tion of youth, or Jim Jones to a community of reli-gious followers.

In the US, there are mixed feelings about char-ismatic leadership and the underlying magicthat is associated with a larger then life persona.One major concern repeatedly raised is that the

power imbalance between the leader and fol-lower can have a negative effect on followers(Dumas & Sankowsky, 1998; Conger & Kanunga,1998; Jordan, 1998). Ross and Offerman (1990, cit-ing Hogan, Raskin, & Fazzini) argue that charis-matic leadership may have a negative and dark

side, which can harm people and organizations,and this is re-enforced by Goleman4 (1990). Sometheorists altogether dismiss the benefit of charis-matic leadership. Khurana (2002) equates charis-matic CEOs as detrimental to organizations, andequates belief in charisma with belief in magic.

Charismatic leadership has been relabelledheroic leadership by some and the name charis-matic/heroic is used interchangeably in the lead-ership literature. The central features of the heroicleader mirrors the charismatic leader in that hero-ic leaders are perceived as larger then life, and arerole models that others are supposed to look upto, and seek to emulate. The charismatic leader-ship style represents a role-model approach thatseeks to inspire the follower (Alimo-Metcalfe &

Alban-Metcalfe, 2001).Mintzberg identifies the heroic style of leader-

ship as inappropriate for long term organization-al growth and development (Mintzberg, 1999).Senge describes the heroic leadership modelas, the destructive hero-CEO myth in his videoseries on leadership, focusing instead on trust andrelationship in a collective organization environ-ment to bring transformation (Senge, 2004).

The focus of heroic leadership is the leadersability and seeming perfection and invincibility.ONeil and ONeil identify the heroic leader asone who has all the answers, with an influenceprocess that does not enable participation fromothers in the organization. However, complexity

within organizations and the rapid pace of changeare helping to clarify and identify the fact that theheroic style of leadership is antiquated. ONeill &ONeill (2002) go on to suggest that leadership

can be construed appropriately as a multilateralinstead of unilateral relationship because of thecomplexity of todays organizations. Their pointis that no one person will have all the correctanswers, all the time, and therefore point to, allparties have a say (ONeill & ONeill, 2002, p. 13).

The liability of the charismatic/heroic leaderis their own ego can potentially get in the wayof benefiting others and the organization. Behav-iours such as not including competent others intodecision making limits the knowledge base from

which decisions are being made (Senge et al.,



10/14

tfviews

1994). If the leader is threatened by having com-petent others around him/her, and consequentlybases decision making on a set of potential fearsof being undermined, then this can have a com-promising effect on what is ultimately best for theorganization as well as all the individuals within it

(Senge et al., 1994). In the increased complexityof organizations and the need for increased inte-gration that complexity requires, the heroic leadercan be a liability (ONeil & ONeil, 2003).

The charismatic/heroic leader contrasts sharp-ly with the quiet leader. Although not referringspecifically to transforming leaders, Badaraccosums up the style of middle and senior level man-agers whom he believes ultimately enable the suc-cess of their organizations. What usually mattersare careful, thoughtful, small, practical efforts bypeople working far from the limelight. In short,quiet leadership is what moves and changes the

world (Bandaracco, 2002, p. 8). The concept ofquiet leaders is a conceptual fit with the nearbyleaders described by Shamir (1995) who are per-ceived by followers as transformational. Alimo-Metcalfes (2004) description of transactionalbehaviours delivered in a transformational man-ner is also a fit with Bandaraccos description.

Concluding RemarksConger & Kanungo point out that the commonground for these leadership theories (charismat-ic versus transformational) is the ability of bothleadership approaches to influence followers andpromote change (Conger & Kanungo, 1998). Thisis the common ground for both charismatic andtransforming leaders.

The research literature indicates that the influ-ence processes used by charismatic leaders isdifferent from the influence processes used bytransforming leaders, which provides evidenceof differences in persona. The leaders persona,

which is her /his self-perception and consequentself-schema, has ramifications throughout theorganization.

Because there is continued debate in distin-guishing between charismatic and transformingleadership in the research literature, this articlehas sought to identify sufficient grounds in assess-ing transforming leadership influence processesas conceptually distinct from charismatic leader-ship processes; to enable identification of distinc-tive influence processes used by transformingleaders. The discussion was limited to analysis of

persona and influence processes related to loveas a form of power for the transforming leader,and identification of two transformational leader-ship influence processes, mutuality of exchangeand power sharing.

The discussion identifying Bouldings theory of

love, when understood in light of Burnss defini-tion of transforming leaders, provided understand-ing of how the influence processes of mutualityand power sharing is used by the transformingleader. The transforming leaders influence proc-ess enables followers the space from which tohave impact on the vision, the leader providesa learning environment, and the leader modelsbeing a learner. There is a reciprocal process ofempowerment that is multi-faceted, but it is notdependent mainly on the charisma of the leader.

Lastly, clarification of terminology is essentialwhen using the phrase charismatic leadership.The extensive research specifically referring toorganizational behaviours perception of charis-matic leadership has spawned multiple attendantarticles within journals across many fields. It istherefore highly likely that use of the term charis-matic leadership will call to mind what the readerhas learned via these articles about the term. It isprudent to keep this in mind whenever the termcharismatic leadership is being used, especially

when describing leaders who are leaders within

the context of the church.

BibliographyAlban-Metcalfe, R. J., Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (2000). An analy-

sis of the covergent and discriminant validity of theTransformational Leaderhsip Questionnaire.Inter-national Journal of Selection and Assessment,8(3), 158-175.

Alimo-Metcalfe, B., Alban-Metcalfe, R. J. (2001). Thedevelopment of a new Transformational Leader-ship Questionnaire.Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology, 74(1), 1-26.

Alimo-Metcalfe, B., & Alban-Metcalfe R. (2003). Train-ing manual. Leeds, UK: Leadership Research andDevelopment Ltd.

Alimo-Metcalfe, B., Alban-Metcalfe, R. (2003b). Underthe influence: The crucial importance of leadership.

People Management, (9)5, 32-36.Alimo-Metcalfe, B., Alban-Metcalfe R. J. (2002). Leader-

ship. In P. Warr (Ed.),Psychology at Work (pp. 300-325). London, UK: Penguin.

Argyle, M., Colman, A. M. (Ed.). (1999). Social psychol-ogy (1995 ed.). London, UK: Longman.

Badaracco, J. L. (2002).Leading Quietly: An Unortho-dox Guide to Doing the Right Thing. Boston, Mass:



11/14

tfviews

Harvard Business School Press.Bailey, J. (2001). Leadership lessons from Mount Rush-

more: An interview with James MacGregor Burns.Leadership Quarterly, 12(1), 113-128.

Bannister, D., Fransella, F. (1986).Inquiring man: Thepsychology of personal constructs. London, UK:

Routledge.Bardy, R. (2002, Dec. 16-17).Leadership in the US andin continental Europe. Paper presented at the Lead-ership Research Workshop, Said Business School,Oxford, UK.

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Indus-try, military and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Elabaum.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J. (1997).Full range leadershipdevelopment: Manual for the Multifactor Leader-

ship Questionnaire. Redwood City, CA: Mind Gar-den.

Bass, B. M., Steidlmeier, P. (1998, 9/24/98).Ethics, char-

acter, and authentic transformational leadership.Retrieved 9/2/02Behling, O., McFillen, J. M. (1996). A syncretical model of

charismatic/transformational leadership. Group &Organization Management, 21(2), 163-192.

Beyer, J. M. (1999). Two approaches to studying char-ismatic leadership: Competing or complimentary?The Leadership Quarterly, 10(4), 575-588.

Birchfield, R. W. (ed.). (1989).Oxford english dictionary(Vol. 1). Oxford, UK: Clarendon.

Boulding, K. E. (1959).Notes on the role of the socialsciences in economic development, 2002, fromhttp://csf.colorado.edu/authors/Boulding.Kenneth/

soc_sci_econ_dev.htmlBoulding, K. E. (1989). Three faces of power. NewburyPark, CA: Sage Publications.

Bradford, D., Cohen, A. (1998).Power Up: TransformingOrganizations through Shared Leadership: John

Wiley & Sons.Brodbeck, F. C., Frese, M., Akerblom, S., Bakacsi, G. A. G.,

Bendova, H., Bodega, D. et al. (2000). Cultural varia-tion of leadership prototypes across 22 Europeancountries.Journal of Occupational and Organiza-tional Psychology, 73(1), 37.

Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organi-zations. London, UK: Sage.

Burns, J. M. (1978).Leadership. London, UK: HarperTorchbooks.Cheng, T., Sculli, D., Shui-fun, F. (2001). Relationship dom-

inance Rethinking management theories from theperspective of methodological relationalism. Jour-nal of Managerial Psychology, 16(2), 97-105.

Ciulla, J. B. (Ed.). (1998). Ethics: The heart of leadership.Westport, CT: Praeger.

Conger, J., Kanungo, R,. (1988). The empowerment proc-ess: Integrating theory and practice.Academy of

Management Review, 13(3), 471-483.Conger, J. A. (1998). Qualitative research as the corner-

stone methodology for understanding leadership.

Leadership Quarterly, 9(1), 107-122.Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational

leaders in organizations: An insiders perspective onthese developing streams of research.LeadershipQuarterly, 10(2), 145-170.

Conger, J. A., Benjamin, B. (1999).Building leaders: How

successful companies develop the next generation.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N. (1988).Charismatic leader-

ship: The elusive factor in organizational effective-ness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic lead-ership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Curry, B. K. (2002). The inf luence of the leader personaon organizational identity.Journal of LeadershipStudies, 8(4), 33-44.

Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quin-tanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W. (1999). Culture specifics

and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadershiptheories: Are attributes of charismatic/transforma-tional leadership universally endorsed?LeadershipQuarterly, 10(2), 219-256.

Den Hartog, D. N., Van Muijen, J. J., Koopman, P. L. (1997).Transactional versus transformational leadership: Ananalysis of the MLQ (Multifactor Leadership Ques-tionnaire).Journal of Occupational and Organiza-tional Psychology, 70(1), 19-35.

Dorfman, P. W., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., Brodbeck F., andGLOBE Research Team. (2002, Dec. 16-17).Identifi-cation and measurement of culturally endorsedleadership prototypes. Paper presented at the

EIASM, Said Business School, Oxford, UK.Dorian, B. J., Dunbar, C., Frayn, D., Garfinkel, P. E. (2000).Charismatic leadership, boundary issues, and collu-sion.American Journal of Psychotherapy, 54(2),216-225.

Dumas, C., Sankowsky, D. (1998). Understanding thecharismatic leader-follower relationship: Promisesand perils.Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(4), 29.

Dvira, T., Shamir, B. (2003).Follower developmentalcharacteristics as predicting transformationalleadership: a longitudinal field study. Retrieved

June 2003, 12 April 2003, from Leadership Quarterlyat Quick Search

Fiol, C. M., Harris, D., House, R. (1999). Charismaticleadership: Strategies for effecting social change.Retrieved Sept. 04, 2002

Fleck, J., Scarbrough, H., Swann, J. (2005). Trainer notes:Cognitive mapping techniques. http://omni.bus.ed.ac.uk/opsman/oakland/contents.htm

Fuller, J. B., Morrison, R., Jones, L., Bridger, D., Brown, V.(1999). The effects of psychological empowermenton transformational leadership and job satisfaction.The Journal of Social Psychology, 139(3), 389-392.

Furnham, A. (1998). The psychology of behaviour atwork: The individual in the organization. London,UK: Psychology Press.



12/14

tfviews

Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic rela-tionship: A dramaturgical perspective.Academy of

Management, 23(1), 32-58.Gardner, W. L., Cleavenger, D. (1998). The impression

strategies associated with transformational lead-ership at the world-class level: A psychohistorical

assessment.Management Communications Quar-terly, 12(1), 3-41.Glad, B., Blanton, R. (1997). F. W. de Klerk and Nelson

Mandela: A study in cooperative transformationalleadership.Presidential Studies Quarterly, 27(3),565-591.

Goleman, D. (1990, April 1). The dark side of charisma;Traits that help leaders to the top can prove disas-terous later. The New York Times, p. F25.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journeyinto the nature of legitimate power and greatness.New York, NY: Paulist Press.

Grint, K. (2002, Dec. 16-17). What is leadership?Paper

presented at the The First International Workshopon Leadership Research, Said Business School andTempleton, Oxford University.

Hirst, G., Mann, L., Bain, P., Pirola-Merlo, A., Richver, A.(2004). Learning to lead: The development and test-ing of a model of learning leadership. The Leader-

ship Quarterly, 15(3), 311-327.Hooijberg, R., Choi, J. (2000). From selling peanuts and

beer in Yankee Stadium to creating a theory of trans-formational leadership: An interview with BernieBass.Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), 291-307.

House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leader-ship. In J. G. H. L. L. Larson (Ed.),Leadership: The

cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale, Il: SouthernIllinois University Press.House, R. J. (1995). Leadership in the twenty-first cen-

turey: A speculative inquiry. In A. Howard (Ed.), TheChanging Nature of Work (pp. 411-450). San Fran-cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., Woycke, J. (1991). Personalityand charisma in the U.S. presidency: A psychologi-cal theory of leader effectiveness.AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 36, 364-396.

Hunt, J. G. (1999). Transformational/Charismatic leader-ships transformation of the field: An historical essay.The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 129-145.

Hunt, J. G., Conger, J. A. (1999). From where we sit: Anassessment of transformational and charismaticleadership research. The Leadership Quarterly,10(3), 335-343.

Jacobsen, C. (2001). Dynamics of charismatic leader-ship: A process theory, simulation model, and tests.

Leadership Quarterly, 12(1), 75-113.Jones, S. L., Butman, R. E. (1991).Modern psychothera-

pies: A comprehensive Christian appraisal. Down-ers Grove, Ill: Inter Varsity Press.

Jordan, D. (1998). Leadership: The state of the research.Parks and Recreation, 33(10), 32-61.

Judge, W. Q. (1999). The leaders shadow: Exploring

and developing executive character. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Kakutani, M. (2001, November 6). How Osama binLaden became a global celebrity. The New YorkTimes, p. E1.

Kempster, S. (2002, Dec. 16-17).How leaders believe

they have learnt how to lead: An examination ofthe lived experience of leadership development.Paper presented at the EIASM, Said Business School,Oxford, UK.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (2001). Creating authentizoticorganizations: Well-functioning individuals in vibrantcompanies.Human Relations, 54(1), 101-111.

Khurana, R. (2002). The curse of the superstar CEO.Harvard Business Review, 80(9), 60-66.

Meindl, J. R. (2001). Charismatic leadership in organi-zations.Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(1),163-165.

Miller, M. (2005) The relationship between transfor-

mational leadership and love as choice to will thehighest good using the Transformational Leader-ship Questionnaire (TLQ). Unpublished PhD, Uni-versity of Wales.

Mintzberg, H. (1999, Spring).Managing quietly, 12,from www.pfdf.org/leaderbooks/121/spring99/mintzberg.html

Myung, H., Hong, Y. (Ed.). (2003). Charis And Charisma.Oxford, UK: Regnum Books International.

ONeill, L., ONeill, B. (2002, Dec. 16-17). Where youstand on leadership depends on where you sit inthe organization. Paper presented at the EIASM,Said Business School, Oxford, UK.

Pielstick, D. C. (1998). The transforming leader: A meta-ethnographic analysis. Retrieved 9/4, 2002, fromhttp://www.findarticles.com

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Bommer, W. H. (1996).Transformational leader behaviors and substitutesfor leadership as determinants of employee satis-faction, committment, trust, and organizational citi-zenship behaviors.Journal of Management, 22(2),259-299.

Price, T. L. (2002). The ethics of authentic transforma-tional leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(1),67-81.

Ross, S. M., Offermann, L. R. (1997). Transformational

leaders: Measurement of personality attributes andwork group performance.Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 23(10), 1078-1092.

Schlenker, B. R. (1985). Identity and self-identification.In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The Self and Social Life(pp. 65-99). New York: NY: McGraw-Hill.

Senge, P. (2004). Senge on Leadership, from www.solo-nline.org/aboutsol/who/Senge/

Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., Smith, B.J. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategiesand tools for building a learning organization.New York, NY: Doubleday.

Shamir, B. (1995). Social distance and charisma: Theo-



13/14

tfviews

retical notes and an exploratory study.LeadershipQuarterly, 6(1), 19-47.

Shamir, B. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weak-nesses in transformational and charismatic leader-ship theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2),285-306.

Shamir, B. (2001). Charismatic leadership in organiza-tions.Journal of Occupational and Organization-al Psychology, 74(1), 112-114.

Shamir, B., Dayan-Horesh, H., Adler, D. (2002, Dec. 16-17).Leading by biography: Towards a biographicalapproach to the study of leadership. Paper present-ed at the EIASM workshop on Leadership Research,Said Business School, Oxford University.

Shamir, B., House, R. J. Arthur, M. B. (1993). The moti-vational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4,577-594.

Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., Popper, M. (1998). Cor-

relates of charismatic leader behavior in militaryunits: Subordinates attitudes, unit characteristics,and superiors appraisals of leaders.Academy of

Management Journal, 41(4), 387-409.Sorokin, P. A. (2002 org. 1954).The ways and power of

love: Types, factors, and techniques of moral trans-formation. Radnor, Penn: Templeton Foundation.

Sosa-Fey, J. (2001). Transformational leadership: A cross-cultural study of the moderating effects of cultureon perceived leader behaviors. (pp. 1-160). Unpub-lished Dissertation: Nova Southeastern University.

Sosik, J. J. (1997). Effects of transformational leadershipand anonymity on idea generation in computer-

mediated groups. Group & Organization Manage-ment, 22(4), 460-488.

Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I. (2002). Examining therelationship of self-presentation attributes andimpression management to charismatic leadership.The Leadership Quarterly, 13(3), 217-242.

Sosik, J. J., Dworakiovsky, A. C. (1998). Self-concept basedaspects of the charismatic leader: More than meetsthe eye.Leadership Quarterly, 9(4), 503-527.

Sosik, J. J., Potosky, D., Jung, D. I. (2002). Adaptive self-reg-ulation: Meeting others expectations of leadershipand performance. The Journal of Social Psychol-

ogy, 142(2), 211-233.Speitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., Nason, S. W. (1997).

Dimensional analysis of the relationship betweenpsychological empowerment and effectiveness,satisfaction, and strain.Journal of Management,

23(5), 679-704.

Szabo, E., Weibler, R., Brodbeck, F. C., Wunderer, R.(2001). Value and behavior orientation in leader-ship studies: Reflections based on findings in threeGerman-speaking countries.Leadership Quarterly,12(2), 219-245.

Tosi, H. L., Misangyi, V. F., Fanelli, A., Waldman, D. A., Yam-marino, F. J. (2004). CEO charisma, compensation,and firm performance. The Leadership Quarterly,15(2), 405-420.

Weber, M. (1964, org. 1947). The theory of social andeconomic organization. New York, NY: The FreePress.

Webster, N. (Ed.). (1979).Websters new universal una-

bridged dictionary. New York, NY: Dorset & Baber.Yukl, G. (1998).Leadership in organizations (4th ed.).

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Notes

1 A construct is essentially a discrimination whicha person can make. Personal construct psychology isan attempt to understand the way in which each of usexperiences the world, to understand our behaviourin terms of what it is designed to signify and to explorehow we negotiate our realities with others (Bannister& Fransella, 1986, p. 27).

2 Freidrich (1961) severely criticized this approachas inappropriate, because the meaning of the word indi-cated specific gifts from God. Freidrich felt the termshould not extend beyond the church and suggestedthe term inspirational should be substituted for char-ismatic.

3 Table 1 is not representative of all differencesbetween transforming leaders and charismatic leaders,but identifies only the discussion raised in this article.

4 Goleman (1990) suggested that the very traitsthat help get leaders to the top of the organisation canbe disastrous for the organisation later.



14/14

transformation lead miller

Documents