This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Measuring Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: Why isn’t Charisma Measured?
Kenneth J. Levine, Robert A. Muenchen & Abby M. Brooks
The literature on both the Transformational and Charismatic theories of leadership espouse the importance of communication as part of the leadership phenomena. However, the existing measurement scales (The Multidimensional Leadership Questionnaire, the CongerÁKanungo Charisma Scale, the Followership Scale and the Romance of Leadership Scale) that are used to assess both the Transformational and Charismatic Theories fail to adequately address and measure the communication behaviors that are believed to be a part of charisma. Four-hundred twenty-two respondents completed the standard measurement scales and were asked to define ‘‘charisma’’ and to discuss the communication behaviors of a charismatic leader. Using text analysis and correlations, no relationships were found between the existing scales and the definitions and behaviors associated with charisma. This manuscript suggests the creation of a new leadership measurement that includes charismatic communication behaviors to assist in a proper understanding of these two leadership theories. Keywords: Leadership; Charisma Introduction In early leadership studies, leaders and managers were considered to perform the same function within an organization. That assumption changed in the 1970s when leaders and managers came to be seen as separate and distinct positions within the organization (Conger, 1999). Hoyt and Ciulla (2004) suggested that this change in
Kenneth J. Levine (PhD, Michigan State) is an Associate Professor in the School of Communication Studies at the University of Tennessee. Robert A. Muenchen (M.A., Tennessee) is the Director of the Statistical Consulting Center at the University of Tennessee. Abby M. Brooks (PhD, Tennessee) is an Assistant Professor at Georgia Southern University. The authors are grateful for the assistance of the anonymous reviews. Correspondence to: Kenneth J. Levine, School of Communication Studies, University of Tennessee, 293 Communications Building Knoxville, TN 37996, USA. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
ISSN 0363-7751 (print)/ISSN 1479-5787 (online) # 2010 National Communication Association DOI: 10.1080/03637751.2010.499368
this relationship must keep the followers in line with the needs and requirements of the leader and the group or organization (Burns. risk-taking. Thus. Transactional leadership was based on cooperation through the exchange of rewards for performance (Burns. 1978). these followers should be motivated to accomplish more than what was asked of them. However. a leader attempts to raise the morals. as such. this theory is more about management and. a leader promotes change in individuals. as it examines the relationship between the leader and the followers and focuses on issues relating to vision. is not relevant to this discussion. 1987). the measurement scales developed to test these two theories fail to measure the communication of charisma adequately. This paper examines the validity of these leadership scales by comparing them to each other and to the meanings that are typically associated with charisma and charismatic communication behavior. Yukl (1989) suggested that followers must feel trust and respect toward their leader and. . Two significant theories were developed to explain this new understanding of leadership: (1) transformational leadership and (2) charismatic leadership. In a reinterpretation of Burns’ 1978 theory. values and ideals of the followers. Implications of this research will follow. All of these components of transformational leadership require the use of communication in order to be successful. Some theorists have suggested that charismatic leadership is a subdimension of transformational leadership. Bass (1985) separated transactional and transformational leadership into two separate theories. While the descriptions of both transformational and charismatic leadership embrace the importance of communication to charisma. 1999). In addition. Transformational leadership involves the moral uplifting of followers and requires that the leader exhibit moral maturity (Kuhnert & Lewis. enthusiasm and confidence (Hoyt & Ciulla. others state that the two theories overlap. the transformational leader attempted to increase follower confidence and increase the value of the output that the follower produces (Bass. 1978). a leader must foster good relationships with his/her followers as a means to encourage and motivate the followers to perform and excel. groups and organizations.Measuring Charisma 577 understanding led to the development of theories and approaches that describe leaders as ‘‘inspirational visionaries. unlike earlier theories that proposed that an effective leader is one who clarifies what performance is necessary. and second. 1985). Results will indicate the usefulness of the different scales. 2004). A series of different measurement scales has been utilized to measure transformational and charismatic leadership. as each identifies unique and important aspects of the leadership process (Yukl. Background Burns (1978) introduced the idea of transformational leadership to demonstrate the two-step process that a leader uses to influence his/her followers: First. Charismatic leadership is similar to transformational leadership. To accomplish this change.’’ and that highlight the unique relationship between leaders and followers.
Podsakoff.. (2) provide an appropriate model. is accomplished when the subordinates are motivated by their leader to think of new ways to accomplish tasks (Bass. 1985). 1985). (2) inspirational motivation. which Bass (1985) suggested is really a subset of influence. House (1977) added the ability to arouse individual motives and Bradford & Cohen (1984) listed the ability to continually develop the skills of individuals. In this role. (6) recognize accomplishments. (1993) suggested that to be a transformational leader. Yammarino et al. Thus. intellectual stimulation. 751). one must be both the coach and the mentor. Individualized consideration. combined with a dominant personality and self-confidence. 1993). MacKenzie. and (7) continued intellectual stimulation. illustrative feedback that the subordinate needs to achieve both individual and organizational needs. For the leader to be both inspirational and motivating. permit this type of leader to act as a strong role model and to instill confidence in the followers. desired outcomes are attainable. is a process through which the leader will pay particular attention to the subordinates’ needs and wants (Bass. 2000. adopts an emotional involvement with the leader and. The most cited model was proposed by Bass (1985). (3) individualized consideration and (4) intellectual stimulation. . becomes more goal-oriented and motivated (House. appealing and inspirational vision to the followers’’ (Judge & Bono. Those transformational characteristics. the follower accepts the leader’s beliefs. the third attribute. House (1977) believed that transformational leaders must have a strong desire to influence and a strong core of personal values. Bass (1990) found that employees believed that they gave an extra effort when their leader exhibited the characteristics of the transformational theory. enthusiasm and belief that the potential. This would result from stimulating subordinates’ imaginations and enhancing their decision-making skills (Yammarino et al. 1977). the leader must push the follower to elevate those needs to a higher level. they must have articulated a ‘‘clear. who believed that the motivation of the follower could be traced to four major components of transformational leadership: (1) idealized influence. As a result. p. 1988). (5) provide individualized support. Bass and Avolio (1994) stated that the inspirational leader will motivate through their own confidence. (3) enhance intellectual acceptance of group goals. Levine et al. The second attribute is inspirational motivation. idealized influence. described a leader’s ability to articulate an inspiring vision and to engage in exemplary acts that followers interpret as involving great personal risk and sacrifice on the part of the leader (Conger & Kanungo. J. and each model varies slightly in describing the behavioral components of a transformational leader. the leader needs to communicate the necessary. Panopoulos (1999) asserted that the leader must do more than simply be cognizant of and sensitive to the current needs of the follower. The first component. Several models of transformational leadership have been proposed since Burns (1978) initially developed the theory. The final attribute. most importantly for the organization.578 K. (4) sustain high performance expectations. Moorman & Fetter (1990) incorporated aspects of seven behavioral components into their model: (1) identify and articulate a vision. To this list.
there is no universally agreed upon definition of charisma (Avolio & Yammarino. This amount of power or influence varies for different people. 1947). Waldman & Einstein. Trice and Beyer (1993) identified four attributes that a person must possess to be a charismatic leader: (1) . Weber (1947) suggested that charisma is a leadership trait that sets one individual apart from others. inspire and motivate. 1984). the term was used to describe an individual’s power or attributes that could not be described by ordinary means (Conger. 1988. 1990). Weber. In an attempt to define charismatic leadership. 1993).’’ or ‘‘gifts presented by the gods’’ (Conger. superhuman. 1990). while others have reported that the reach of charismatic leadership does not stop at the leader-follower level and that a charismatic leader also makes a significant impact on the life of the organization (Tejeda. meaning ‘‘the gift of grace. examined political leaders and believed that their power was a result of a social turmoil from which the charismatic leader would emerge with a new vision that would solve the crisis (Barbuto. Charismatic Leadership Charismatic leadership has its roots in the 1922 writings of Max Weber (Conger & Kanungo. Weber’s article. The definition of this type of leadership is complex and involves the leader. one must keep in mind that ‘‘charisma’’ does not describe just one personality type. (2) Inspire. As such. 1989. Despite years of inquiry. the followers would identify with both the leader and the vision. To define charismatic leadership. 1977. Their works highlight that while charisma is internal to the leader. inspiration and motivation are components of competent communication (Spitzberg & Cupach. scales to measure transformational leadership need to include items geared to understand the communication skills of the leader. Some researchers have determined that charisma is mainly a leader-follower phenomenon (Seltzer & Bass. Thus. 1989). and they would follow with both commitment and obedience (Avolio. Weber. 1988. the followers and their shared environment (Conger. it would appear that effective communication skills are at the forefront of the requirements to be a transformational leader. 1997). Originally. 1990. and (4) Motivate.Measuring Charisma 579 A review of the above components of transformational leadership reveal that the verbs used most often to define Bass’s (1985) four attributes are (1) Influence. Halpert. & Pillai. originally published in German. (3) Communicate. 1947). the leader will have a more difficult time ‘‘transforming’’ the followers to either adopt or embrace the vision and the mission of the organization as their own and to begin to satisfy their self-actualization needs. Trice & Beyer. the power that the leader holds over another is in the eye of the beholder. The word charisma is derived from the Greek word. or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. Scandura. Thus. House. it is believed that effective articulation. 2001). Further. Furthermore. 1989. 1994). a charismatic leader is endowed with supernatural. charismata. Avolio and Yammarino (1990) and Conger (1989) have described charisma as being much more personal. Without the communication skills necessary to articulate.
Nandal and Krishnan (2000) reported that a review of the charismatic leadership literature found that there is a strong correlation between charismatic leadership and employee satisfaction. (4) communication of ideas. such as power. The stylistic component includes the nonverbals of communication. Shamir (1995) found that leaders who were deemed to be charismatic were thought to exhibit high energy. the charismatic leader demonstrated that leadership and achievement are a long-term process (Kanter. identification and vision. 1993). Frese. these skills are traits of a competent communicator and should be evaluated when assessing a charismatic leader. Trice & Beyer. & Puranam (2001) suggested that the behaviors of charismatic leaders included: (1) articulating a vision and sense of mission. and (5) communication of expectations. internalized commitment. Shamir. Flynn and Staw (2004) found that companies led by charismatic leaders tended to outperform similar companies in the same industry with non-charismatic leaders. Shea and Howell (1999) tested the self-efficacy hypothesis and found that employees who were exposed to a charismatic leader performed better than those under a non-charismatic leader. Further. attributions. respect. by increasing confidence of the subordinates and by stressing a common goal’’ (p. extraordinary gifts. (2) showing determination. Waldman and Yammarino (1999) looked specifically at CEO charisma and defined charismatic leadership based on relationships. by sharing a vision related to the project. Charismatic Communication Despite the problems with defining the term. In the content component. confidence and a dynamic presence and Holladay and Coombs (1994) found that the nonverbals of the charismatic leader are important in demonstrating one’s emotional side. Just as there is no set definition of charismatic leadership. House. Beimel. Levine et al. and (4) transcendent powers. Waldman. the researchers suggested that charisma is communicated via content and stylistic components. high intelligence and a high level of interpersonal communication skills. 673). and Arthur (1993) also found that charismatic leaders motivate their followers through the use of self-efficacy. and (3) observers’ characteristics. (2) presence in a crisis. House. 1983. In their training. J. and Schoenborn (2003) believed that leaders can be trained to communicate charismatically. (2) situation. there is no singular agreed upon definition of charismatic communication. regardless of situational variables such as task feedback. adding another level to the depth of charisma. which Bandura (1997) defined as the belief in one’s ability to organize and execute the necessary action to produce the desired goals. 1996) looked at political leaders and . admiration. Renshon (1995. As discussed above. (3) determination. ‘‘charisma was characterized by stressing the importance of the project. Hollander and Offermann (1990) defined charisma by dividing the attributes of charisma into three broad categories: (1) attitude and behavior. In addition. (3) ability to present radical solutions. Ramirez.580 K. A review of the above components of charismatic leadership revealed that the verbs used most often to define the concept are: (1) behavior (2) presence in a crisis. and (3) communicating high performance expectations.
Most people spend their time in the followership role. 1990). Both theory-building and continued exploratory research are necessary’’ (p.Measuring Charisma 581 noted that the highly effective leaders portrayed: (1) ambition and determination. 1988). it was determined that the MLQ was reliable and a good predictor of work effectiveness. 1994) originally constructed a 49-item scale to measure charisma. and (3) cognitive-creative skills. The number of items was reduced to 25 items after Conger and Kanungo found 24 of the items were ambiguous. 1992). 1988) and the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ. As such. and to be a successful follower it is important to have insight into how one fulfills the role. 1994). Subsequently. Bass’ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) scale is the predominant measure used to assess transformational leadership (Yukl. (2) interpersonal skills. The items outlined 49 different charismatic behaviors as perceived by subordinates. the Romance for Leadership Scale (Meindl & Ehrlich. a series of different measurement scales have been utilized to measure both transformational and charismatic leadership including: the CongerÁKanungo Charisma scale (Conger & Kanungo. Bass. specifically addressing the high levels of intercorrelations among the subscales of the MLQ. all of which are attributes of oratorical or verbal intelligence. 1988). due in part to the commonly held belief that the ability to motivate employees is a management or leadership skill and not a trait of the subordinate (Gilbert & Hyde. Although not having a clear cut definition leads to the challenges of measuring charismatic leadership (Avolio & Yammarino. The 20-item scale was created to accomplish . Existing Measurement Scales Conger (1999) stated that ‘‘our knowledge [of transformational leadership] is still formative in terms of leader behavior and follower effects. The MLQ was designed to measure the leadership style of the respondent and not to assess the qualities of the leadership that the employee may favor or may find motivating. scholars and practitioners are left with an incomplete understanding of these important theories of leadership. By drawing on previous studies and reviewing the literature. Yukl’s (1999) analysis of the scale found conceptual and methodological weaknesses. With all the ways of describing. 1999). In Lowe and Kroeck’s (1996) meta-analysis of the MLQ literature. 1985). the Followership Scale (Kelley. Kelley (1992) developed the Followership scale by collecting information from both followers and leaders. researchers have difficulty explaining and assessing the phenomenon. Lowe and Kroeck did note that the MLQ failed to take into consideration some moderator variables. However. However. in 1998. until the scales actually measure all the components of the theory. such as the level of leadership and organizational setting. the scale was reduced to 20 items. Conger and Kanungo (1988. defining and characterizing charismatic leadership. The study of followership is limited. 164). redundant and lacked discriminatory power (Conger & Kanungo. the scale does not truly measure the attributes of charisma. as well as the use of items that describe desired outcomes with those that describe behaviors.
Using this scale. Methods Participants The data were collected from undergraduate and graduate students at a large southeastern university. the following research questions (RQs) are proposed: RQ1: What does charisma mean? RQ2: What are the communication behaviors that are enacted by someone who is deemed to be charismatic? There are several leadership scales that are designed to measure transformational and charismatic leadership. 86 seniors. 1988). There were 87 first-year students. 195 males and 217 females (10 missing). Therefore. and (2) to pinpoint the participants’ followership strengths.582 K. dependent when a charismatic leader is present. H2: There is no relationship between the meaning of charisma and the scales of transformational and charismatic leadership. Subjects were recruited in class and given course credit for participation. As such. 1985). Levine et al. 127 sophomores. instead of less. four leadership scales and demographic information. the Followership scale (Kelley. and the Romance of Leadership Scale (Meindl & Ehrlich. the Conger & Kanungo (1998) Charisma scale.68 (range 18Á50). 1992). A self-report questionnaire was administered to 422 respondents. two specific purposes: (1) to help individuals determine their type of leadership. . The Romance of Leadership Scale (Meindl & Ehrlich. 99 juniors. and 11 graduate students (11 missing). the survey included the Multidimensional Leadership Questionnaire (Bass. 1988) consists of nine items and is designed to determine the participant’s view of (1) how important leadership is to an organization and (2) how leadership is constructed. the following hypotheses (H) are proposed: H1: There is a strong relationship between the existing scales of transformational and charismatic leadership. Hypotheses and Research Questions This review of the literature on transformational and charismatic leadership suggests that there are components of the concept of charisma and charismatic behavior that are not yet entirely understood. Specifically. De Vries (1999) found that subordinates are more. The mean age was 20. The results from participants give insight into how individuals in an organization perceive their leaders and how much the individuals are motivated by their superiors. Procedures and Measurement The questionnaire consisted of two open-ended items. J.
The reliability alpha for this subscale was . Finally.810.810. The second subdimension of sensitivity to members’ needs includes such items as ‘‘influences others by developing mutual liking and respect’’ and ‘‘shows sensitivity for the needs and feelings of the other members of the organization.’’ The reliability alpha was . and (5) unconventional behavior. Bass’ Multidimensional Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). Finally. (4) personal risk. The items on this scale include such items as ‘‘There is nothing as critical to the bottomline performance of a company than the quality of its top-level leaders’’ and ‘‘It doesn’t matter who’s running the show: the fate of a company is only as good or bad as its leaders. Personal risk is measured by asking if the leader ‘‘takes high personal risks for the sake of the organization’’ and ‘‘often incurs high personal cost for the good of the organization. and hence will not be used in the subsequent analysis.777. 1988) consists of 9 items designed to determine the participant’s view of how important leadership is to an organization and the construction of leadership. The 1998 version of the Conger and Kanungo is divided into five subcategories: (1) strategic vision and articulation. Sensitivity to the environment is measured with items such as ‘‘recognizes the abilities and skills of other members in the organization’’ and ‘‘recognizes the limitations of other members of the organization.Measuring Charisma 583 The open-ended items asked the respondents: (1) to define charisma and (2) to detail the communication behaviors associated with charisma. their organization and their leader. items such as ‘‘engages in unconventional behavior in order to achieve organizational goals’’ and ‘‘uses nontraditional methods of achieve organizational goals’’ assess the category of unconventional behavior. Followership Scale.708. (2) sensitivity to the environment. the Romance of Leadership scale (Meindl & Ehrlich. The Multidimensional Leadership Questionnaire form 6s (Bass. The Followership Scale (Kelley.763.’’ This scale scored a reliability alpha of .’’ The reliability alpha was . Romance of Leadership Scale. 1985) is designed to measure the respondents’ perceptions of their own leadership.835. Conger and Kanungo’s Charismatic Leadership Scale. .’’ The reliability alpha was . 1992) asked the followers to critically view themselves. The 12-item scale contains items such as ‘‘Do you independently think up new ideas that will contribute significantly to the leader’s goals?’’ and ‘‘Do you help the leader of the group see both the upside potential and downside risks of ideas or plans. Space was given on the questionnaire to respond to these open-ended items.729. playing the devil’s advocate if need be?’’ This scale scored a reliability alpha of .’’ The reliability alpha for this subcategory was . (3) sensitivity to members’ needs. The strategic vision dimension includes items such as ‘‘provides inspiring and strategic management goals’’ and ‘‘consistently generates new ideas for the future of the organization. it does not address the qualities of transformational leadership that are under investigation in the study.
empathize with and understand others. charming. The first factor of terms suggested that ‘‘charisma’’ was an ability and personality trait of a leader with an outgoing personality. RQs 1 and 2 are answered by examining the factors to find the words that the subjects used most often.584 K. Results The goal of the first RQ is to understand the definition of the term ‘‘charisma. The software analyzes the words used by the subjects in three stages.’’ The second factor of terms defined charisma as the ability to listen. These weighted term frequencies are then analyzed using singular value decomposition (SVD). as it is helpful in understanding context within the definition. all aspects of the openended definitions of charisma can be measured against the scales that typically have been used to assess charisma. During the transformation stage. The SVDs and factors can then be analyzed using traditional statistics. For a term to become part of a factor.’’ Each resulting term is a word root or phrase used as a particular part of speech. only texts with loadings above . Also. takes its logarithm to decrease the impact of wordy subjects and weights them using entropy. relating to the idea of charisma. Thus. H1 is tested by calculating Pearson correlations among the 4 standard leadership scales. identifying their part of speech and searches for noun groups such as ‘‘clear vision. A charismatic person also is genuine and knows when to talk and when to listen. this self-referential term remained in the analysis. Here.’’ converts the remaining words into ‘‘terms’’ by stemming the words to their root form. understanding. This involved the use of Pearson correlations between the two sets of measures.’’ Using the SAS Enterprise Miner program. After careful consideration.’’ ‘‘with. the software counts the frequencies of these terms.’’ ‘‘has. five factors of terms were formed. During the parsing stage. Text Miner transforms textual data into a format that can examine and find relationships or associations among terms in the text. verbs and articles such as ‘‘in. The adjectives included in the definition are listed in the order that they appear in the SVD table. confident. The third factor has the most to do with communication. Statistical Procedures Coding of the open-ended responses was accomplished using the SAS Text Miner software. humorous. J. canonical correlation was used.450 were included. possesses a good attitude and is a good speaker. This person is strong. . is influential. Levine et al. To ensure that no linear combination of score was correlated between the two sets. H2 is analyzed using correlations of the two sets of measures: the standard leadership scores and the factor scores derived from the subjects’ written descriptions. it drops lowinformation words such as ‘‘a. thus ‘‘strong’’ and ‘‘charming’’ scored higher in the analysis than did ‘‘influential’’ and ‘‘good attitude. The term ‘‘charisma’’ and its various derivations were the most commonly mentioned terms in the definitions themselves. is a quality individual.’’ and ‘‘makes’’ were left in the analysis to assist in putting the phrases back into a meaningful format. shows good sense. a process similar to factor analysis.
interesting.442 between the two unidimensional scales. Charismatic leaders are energetic.133 to . A similar analysis was undertaken to understand these data. interesting. understanding and demonstrates a sense of involvement. and present ideas with confidence. determined yet comfortable in front of others and know how to listen. is a strong leader. Further. RQ2 asked what communication behaviors are exhibited by a charismatic leader. This type of leader is skillful. has definite opinions and sets and achieves goals. enthusiastic. understanding.50 or above. appeal to a group of people. Pearson’s correlations were run among these measures. Followership and the personal risk subscale had a very low correlation (r 0. this type of person is known to smile.172). is open to group ideas as well as ideas that are different from their own. this leader has the knowledge and abilities to understand. The Followership Scale and the Romance of Leadership Scale are unidimensional while the CongerÁKanuago Charisma Scale has five subscales: (1) Strategic Vision. as well (r 0. The final factor finds that the charismatic leader communicates effectively to other people. (3) Sensitivity to Members’ Needs. The second factor suggests that a charismatic person is persuasive. understand what people want and need. The fourth factor finds that a charismatic leader is task oriented. The first factor found that a charismatic leader is a good speaker. and the r-values ranged from . persuasive. suggesting that they are testing much the same construct: the view of charismatic leadership from the perspective of the subordinate/follower. Of particular interest was the correlation of . The final factor listed behavioral and personality terms such as: someone who is powerful. Followership and Romance of Leadership. Further. loud. and has the ability to put others at ease. The Followership Scale is strongly correlated to the subdimensions of strategic vision. All of these terms had a factor loading of .440) and sensitivity to the environment (r0. The third factor concentrates on communication behaviors and suggests that a charismatic leader is a perceptive and affective communicator. However. both verbally and nonverbally.Measuring Charisma 585 charisma includes the ability to speak well and defines someone who is poised. H1 predicted that the standard measures of leadership all measure similar concepts. and (5) Unconventional Behavior. able to be effective while speaking to a group of people. effecting and entertaining. The fourth factor incorporates many nonverbal communication attributes into the definition by suggesting that charisma is the ability to speak well and to maintain effective eye contact.504. and is interested in what others think and feel. the charismatic person is a skillful speaker and has a large vocabulary. . In addition. (2) Sensitivity to the Environment. as well as someone with a good attitude and a genuine speaking style. charming. enthusiastic. has ideas. asks for others to share ideas and opinions. In addition. Further.435) on the CongerÁKanungo Scale. speak. motivational and humorous. such a leader will exhibit ease and comfort when speaking. has a pleasant and positive vocal style and displays good body language. motivate and excite a group. a charismatic person is positive. (4) Personal Risk. involving and funny.
As some of the correlations were low. J. as our findings are only as valid and useful as the methods used to measure them. H1 was supported in part and not supported in part (Table 1). . strong. communication concepts were very prevalent within these definitions. and so there is no relationship between the standard scales and the components of charismatic behavior (Table 2 and 3).586 K.’’ A review of the raw data demonstrated that most respondents began their definition with ‘‘charisma is the ability. Other terms within the factors are personality traits that are highly prized in our culture: outgoing. In order to truly understand leadership. After ability. Most . The findings give great insight into the term ‘‘charisma. . A review of all the factors gives no indication of charisma as unattainable for anyone. The current focus in both secondary and higher education on public speaking skills bodes well for our future leaders. all of the factors included the term ‘‘ability. and often these subjects are a part of the traditional communication studies curriculum.’’ As detailed above. humorous. persuasion and influence are central to the definition of charisma. Due to the large sample size. charming and understanding.’’ The use of the term ability suggests that the respondents believe that leaders can acquire charisma. This analysis gives an indication of some of the elements of charisma. Finally. this dimension should be added to future inquiries. yet it forms the core of both transformational and charismatic leadership theories. A canonical correlation was run between all the elements of the standard scales and the five SVD factors found in this analysis. Discussion This study was designed to assess the measurement scales that are commonly used to test the theories of transformational and charismatic leadership. thus it is not an inborn trait that some are born with and others are not. confident. all of the measures were statistically significant. This type of inquiry is vital for the organizational communication scholar. RQ3 examined whether there would be a relationship between the behaviors that the respondents believe are enacted by charismatic leaders (RQ2) and the concepts that the standard transformational and charismatic leadership scales actually measure. The aim is not to discount the knowledge that has been gained through the use of these existing scales. . there is little consensus on charisma’s proper definition. The canonical correlation was selected as it is designed to assess the relationship between two sets of variables. as they are gaining important skills that will assist them in their chosen careers. rather it is to suggest that the charismatic communication dimension of these two leadership theories has been omitted from the prior examinations. Additionally. Both verbal and nonverbal competencies are considered part of charisma. No statistically significant correlations between the standard measures and the SVD factors were found. in this case the set of standard measures and the set of SVD factors. To begin with. Levine et al. listening was mentioned many times as an aspect of charismatic behavior.
CKsmn 0 Sensitivity to Members’ Needs. 411 .000 404 . 415 .000 403 .01 level (two-tailed).000 403 .000 407 .175 (**) .000 403 .007 409 . 414 .000 404 . 409 .438 (**) .350 (**) .Table 1 Correlations between standard measures of leadership Romance Romance Pearson correlation Significance (two-tailed) N Followership Pearson correlation Significance (two-tailed) N Cksva Pearson correlation Significance (two-tailed) N Ckse Pearson correlation Significance (two-tailed) N Ckub Pearson correlation Significance (two-tailed) N CKpr Pearson correlation Significance (two-tailed) N CKsmn Pearson correlation Significance (two-tailed) N 1 .504 (**) .000 407 Ckub .435 (**) .012 410 .000 409 .499 (**) .438 (**) .007 409 .000 400 1 .000 404 1 .000 408 .261 (**) .000 409 .000 400 . CKse 0 Sensitivity to the Environment.000 403 .000 408 CKpr .001 405 .440 (**) .499 (**) . 414 Measuring Charisma *Correlation is significant at the .000 409 1 .540 (**) .000 404 .250 (**) .012 410 .000 408 .200 (**) . CKsva 0 Strategic Vision.000 407 1 .000 403 Follower .000 403 . 416 .133 (**) .05 level (two-tailed).124 (*) .175 (**) .000 404 .000 402 .000 408 CKse .226 (**) .307 (**) .000 409 1 .309 (**) .000 403 CKsva .261 (**) .442 (**) .442 (**) .350 (**) .001 405 .000 404 .403 (**) .540 (**) .313 (**) .000 407 .309 (**) .000 404 .000 404 .440 (**) . CKpr 0 Personal Risk.311 (**) . Ckub 0 Unconventional Behavior 587 .313 (**) .133 (**) .403 (**) .504 (**) .000 409 .200 (**) .250 (**) .226 (**) .000 408 CKsmn .000 403 . **Correlation is significant at the .000 402 .435 (**) .172 (**) .307 (**) .124 (*) .000 408 1 .311 (**) . 415 .172 (**) .000 409 .
an attention to nonverbals is important. such as Path-Goal (Evans. One would likely not be considered charismatic if they were not effective both verbally and nonverbally.824 .539 .0614 . These responses were more focused than for the first response.233 . The attributes mentioned in RQ1 and RQ2 are not found within the items on the standard measurement scales.0223 (.0203 (.0017 . suggesting that a person with charisma is well-liked and respected.191 . Levine et al.0220 (. It is surprising that this is so well correlated with the other measures.0587 . As above.0332 (. demonstrated by the use of phrases such as: (1) ease and comfort when speaking. numerous studies have used these Table 3 Canonical Correlations Between Standard Measurements and SVD Factors Canonical correlation 1 2 3 4 5 . J.0060 .0722 .0001 .0901 (. ideas and feelings was particularly interesting.0682 (.0470 .0199 SVD4 (.0550 .876 .120 . 1970) and the Psychodynamic Approach (Zaleznik.1031 .0086 . Secondly. (2) able to be effective and appealing in front of a group.0022 SVD3 (. 1977) but are not components of transformational or charismatic leadership. public speaking skills were deemed very important.050 Significance . The Romance of Leadership Scale (Meindl & Ehrlich.0016 . Table 2 Canonical Correlations Between Standard Measures and SVD factors Scale Followership Romance of Leadership CK*Strategic Vision CK*Sensitivity to the Environment CK*Personal Risk CK*Sensitivity to Members’ Needs CK*Unconventional Behavior SVD1 .0222 .0795 (. The prominence of the respondents’ description of leaders’ attention to the follower’s interests.0649 (.164 .880 . 1988) is designed to determine the participant’s view of (1) how important leadership is to an organization and (2) how leadership is constructed. as they incorporated most elements of communication. as these are seen to work in conjunction with the verbal skills to create the charismatic image.1237 . The second open-ended item asked about the communication behaviors associated with charisma.088 .0242 (. (3) has a pleasant and positive vocal style.1053 . and (4) the ability to motivate a group.0611 (. These attributes are found in some of the more recent leadership theories. To date.588 K.0830 all the terms loaded positively on the factor.0256 .0530 (.0078 (.0403 .0594 SVD5 .0651 (.0054 SVD2 (. The overall finding that the three existing leadership measurement scales correlated underscores the purpose of this inquiry. but yet not related to the behaviors of charismatic leadership found in this study.0809 (.
J. Leadership. The strength of the findings leaves little doubt that there is a problem. These studies have provided substantial information and understanding of leadership. . D. as these dimensions of charisma and charismatic behavior can and should be incorporated into any new measurement scales used in future research. However.. Avolio. D. New York: Freeman and Company. thus filling the gap in the existing scales.M. W.J. Managing for excellence: The guide to developing high performance in contemporary organizations.M. Organizational Dynamics. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality..J. Barbuto. (1994). References Avolio.A. and hence understand. Only by adding these components into research can we truly understand the leadership phenomenon. If. Adding the measurement of charismatic communication will enhance their value in assessing the concept. Waldman. F. Group and Organizational Studies. (1988). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. (1997). & Cohen. Operationalizing charismatic leadership using a levels-ofanalysis framework. The Theories of Transformational and Charismatic Leadership have demonstrated long staying power and have been the backbone of decades of leadership research. B.Measuring Charisma 589 existing scales to help us understand the phenomena of leadership. Thousand Oaks. Bradford. Bandura. New York: Free Press..M. A. (1985).L. we only have a partial understanding of leadership and leadership behaviors. (1990).R. Bass. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. but only to the extent of what is included in each of the scales. New York: Wiley. it provides direction for future inquiry. Self-efﬁcacy: The exercise of control. Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. we have an incomplete picture of the theory and practice of leadership.E. 689Á697. These findings give researchers a new focus for their future inquiry.. it is evident that they do not measure charismatic communication.J. Without a diversity of measurement instruments or without the inclusion of all the central elements of the theories. Bass. Leadership Quarterly. (1978). 13. CA: Sage. as suggested by the findings of the final RQ. 193Á208. B.. 19Á31. Limitations and Ideas for Future Research While there are certainly limitations with this study. 18. Bass. J. Burns. the behaviors associated with charisma are not included in the measurement scales testing charismatic leadership.. 1. & Avolio. A. & Einstein. New York: Harper & Row. B. B. (1990).J. 59Á80. the ideas and findings are significant and hopefully will enable organizational leadership scholars to better measure. for example the use of a convenient sample of University students. & Yammarino. Transformational leadership in a management game simulation: Impacting the bottom line. B. B. (1997).M. charisma in the future.O. (1984). All of the phrases found in the factors can be used to compose a new Charismatic Communication Leadership Scale. 12. Taking the charisma out of transformational leadership. at the same time. However.
W. 339Á 410. (1994). Speaking of vision and vision being spoken: An exploration of the effects of content and delivery on perceptions of leader charisma. (1989). (1996).au/conferences/policewomen2/Panopoulos. July. Developing a romance of leadership scale. (1999). 231Á243. S. Silver Anniversary Proceedings.G. R.. 145Á170.. Levine et al.. Larson (Eds. In J. Organizational Behaviors and Human Performance. Action training for charismatic leadership: Two evaluations of studies of a commercial training module on inspirational communication of a vision.A. 385Á425.E.. Lowe. 165Á189. Eastern Academy of Management. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. Meindl. J. (1999). Gender differences in transformational leadership among the ﬁeld leaders of New South Wales Police students. J. S. The effects of supervisory behavior on the pathÁgoal relationship.J. DC. The change masters: Innovation and entrepreneurship in the American corporation. Strategic Management Journal.N. 8. 25. 179Á189. (1994).A. On charisma and the need for leadership. 10. J. House.590 K. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Thousand Oaks. Hoyt. R.T. (1990).B.J. 4. P. IL: Southern Illinois University Press. (1977). Flynn. V. (1983). Leadership: The cutting edge (pp.G. Personnel Psychology.A.html . 56. R. University of Queensland. Journal of Applied Psychology. De Vries. (1988). Beimel. Conger. New York: Doubleday. Public Administration Review. May. L. & Bono.L. & Ehrlich. J. B. J.G. Halpert. Charismatic leadership in organizations. 5.M. (1988). T. Journal of Business and Psychology. F. Simon & Schuster: New York. & Kanungo. & Kanungo. S. J. Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. R. 962Á968. & Kroeck. K. K. R. Gilbert. J. (1998). Nandal. Panopoulos. Available from the Woodrow Wilson International Center of Scholars. (1988). (2004).R. Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider’s perspective on these developing streams of research.gov. C..B. Conger. A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. 189Á207). 48.. Kuhnert. Leadership Quarterly. Retrieved from http://www.. Leadership Quarterly. Judge..R. Followership and the federal worker.P. 109Á133.aic. Holladay. S. 85. Charismatic leadership and self-efﬁcacy: Importance of role clarity..B. F. V.. Kelley. CA: Sage.W. Using advanced gaming technology to teach leadership: A research-based perspective. Transactional and transformational leadership: A constructive/ developmental analysis. Kanter. Hollander. 1999.N. (2003). (2000). 7. M. & Ciulla.C. 12. Conger. Management Communication Quarterly. Washington. R. & Offermann. Conger.. (1999). The power of followership. A.E.A. Academy of Management Review. Frese. Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis review of the MLQ literature. (1992). 439Á452. Hunt & L. 8. K. & Staw. 277Á298. (1990). (1970). Evans. (2000).N. 751Á765. 648Á657. Lend me your wallets: The effect of charismatic leadership on external support for an organization.A. San Francisco. The dimensionality of charisma.. R. & Schoenborn. & Kanungo. 15. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 309Á330.. & Hyde.. E. M.A.L. Charismatic leadership in organization: Perceived behavioral attributes and their measurement.M. & Krishnan. Conger. (2004. R. J. Power and leadership in organizations: Relationships in transition.J.G. October). Management and Labour Studies. J. Carbondale. American Psychologist. J. CA: Jossey-Bass. Charismatic leadership. Paper presented at the Second Australasian Women and Policing Conference. The charismatic leader: Behind the mystique of exceptional leadership.A. & Coombs.). (1987).R.. 671Á699. Emmanuel College. & Lewis. 45. 25.
B.A. The psychological assessment of presidential candidates.J. J. S.. New York: New York University Press. Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research.. & Bass. 1. R. H.A. 12. (1999). Ramirez. 285Á305. CO: Westview Press. P. (1977). M. S. G.D. Shamir. & Puranam. 19Á47. (1999). R. Yearly Review of Management.A. M.M. W. Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and proﬁtability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. & Cupach. 24. Social distance and charisma: Theoretical notes and an exploratory study. W. B.. J.. and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly. 251Á289. The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. R..M. Interpersonal communication competence... 67Á68. CEO charismatic leadership: Levels-of-management and levels-of-analysis effects. 266Á285. Weber. governing and psychology of leadership. Boulder. Transformational leadership and performance: A longitudinal investigation.A. (1995). Yukl. D. 55. (1989). M. Shea. 81Á102. (1993). 6.J. 10. An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. & Fetter. NJ: Prentice Hall. Yammarino. G. 107Á142. New York: Oxford University Press. 16. R.. 44. Scandura. B.H. T. S.. The Clinton presidency: Campaigning. B. (1995). (1996). The cultures of work organizations. (1990). .A.B. F. A.. & Bass. Waldman.R. Leadership Quarterly. Spangler. Spitzberg. Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. Journal of Management. F. Renshon. Leadership Quarterly. M. Charismatic leadership and task feedback: A laboratory study of their effects on self-efﬁcacy and task performance. & Pillai. (1993). J. Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review.M.J. Leadership Quarterly. & Yammarino. P. Translated by A. 10..G. C. Academy of Management Journal.. (1947). R. Shamir. Zaleznik. & Howell. (1993). The theory of social and economic organization.M. 15. Englewood Cliffs. Henderson and Talcott Parsons.J. 577Á594. 4. B. 31Á52. Organization Science.. & Beyer. House. Renshon. 4. Beverly Hills. MacKenzie.M.H. (1999). Yukl. Seltzer. satisfaction.A..Measuring Charisma 591 Podsakoff. (2001). The Academy of Management Review. Trice. Leadership Quarterly.. G.A. 693Á703. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leaders.J. (1990). (2001). 375Á396. CA: Sage. Moorman.M.B.M. Leadership Quarterly. The MLQ revisited psychometric properties and recommendations.. D. Tejeda. & Arthur. House. Waldman. 134Á144. (1984).
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.