CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP: STRATEGIES FOR EFFECTING SOCIAL CHANGE
C. Marlene Fiol
University of Colorado - Denver
Drew Harris
Fairleigh Dickinson University
Robert House
University of Pennsylvania
Second revision February 1999
Please address all correspondence to:
C. Marlene Fiol
University of Colorado at Denver
College of Business
CB 165
PO Box 173364
Denver CO 80217-3364
303-556-5812
1
CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP: STRATEGIES FOR EFFECTING SOCIAL CHANGE
ABSTRACT
Due to their unique relationship with followers, charismatic leaders can be powerful agents of social change. Current theories of charismatic leadership have emphasized primarily the personality and behavior of leaders and their effects on followers, organizations, and society. This emphasis fails to uncover why and how the charismatic leader-follower interaction can generate social change. Our study draws on theories of social meaning to develop a process model of charismatic leadership. Empirical exploration of our model suggests that charismatic leaders employ a set of consistent communication strategies for effecting social change.
1
INTRODUCTION
We have substantial evidence that charismatic leaders behave differently than non-charismatic leaders. Further, we know that charismatic leaders can generate radical social changes, and that the performance of charismatic leaders and their followers tends to exceed that of their non-charismatic counterparts. To date, however, we know very little about the processes by which leaders and followers interact to effect social changes (Meindl, 1992). There is a need to address the following unanswered questions: Why do charismatic leaders adopt certain behaviors? Why do their followers respond in predictable ways to those behaviors? How does the leader-follower interaction generate social change?
In this paper, we address these questions by drawing on theories of social change and construction and destruction of social meaning. We present a model that begins to explain why and how the charismatic leader-follower interaction can generate social change. The model suggests theoretical propositions that we test empirically by content analyzing speeches of all twentieth century U.S. presidents through Ronald Reagan. The empirical results show that charismatic leaders employ consistent communication strategies for breaking down, moving, and re-aligning the norms of their followers.
A REVIEW OF CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP RESEARCH
Sociologists, political historians, and political scientists have widely accepted the theory of charismatic leadership originally advanced by Weber (1947). To our knowledge, no one has subjected Weber’s theory to quantitative empirical test. However, several scholars have advanced additional theories that invoke the concept of charismatic leadership (Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977; Trice & Beyer, 1986), visionary leadership (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Sashkin, 1988), or transformational leadership (Burns, 1978). These related theories have been subjected to substantial empirical investigation.
We refer to this general class of theory as the neo-charismatic leadership paradigm. While there are some differences among these theories, and while some may argue that there are some substantive differences among these theories (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1994) which indeed there are, we argue that they all fit well within a more general paradigm. We take this position and use the label “ neo-charismatic leadership paradigm” for a number of reasons. First, this new genre of theory has much in common with the Weberian conceptualization of charisma. As Weber asserted, all of these theories also assert that exceptionally effective leaders articulate visions that are based on normative ideological values, offer innovative solutions to major social problems, stand for non-conservative if not radical change, and generally emerge and are more effective under conditions of social stress and crisis. Second, charismatic behavior (visionary, change oriented, non-conservative) is either implicitly or explicitly a central concept in all of the theories of this paradigm.
Third, all of the theories of this paradigm emphasize independent variables that appeal strongly to followers: symbolic leader behavior, visionary and inspirational ability, nonverbal communication, appeal to ideological values, and leader expectations for follower selfsacrifice and for performance beyond the call of duty. Fourth, while all leadership theories imply an underlying theme of performance improvement, the theories of the neo-charismatic leadership paradigm focus primarily on affective rather than cognitive dependent variables: follower emotional attachment to the mission and values espoused by the leader, emotional and motivational arousal, enhancement of valences with respect to the mission articulated by the leader, heightened self esteem, trust and confidence in the leader, and heightened intrinsic motivation. Fifth, all of these theories assert that leaders described as charismatic, visionary, or transformational generally have positive effects on followers and organizations that exceed those of leaders described in theories of non-charismatic leadership. Sixth, the term charisma has had an enduring and honorable tradition in the sociological literature, and the above independent and dependent variables of the neo-charismatic paradigm are consistent with the traditional charismatic literature.
Seventh, the similarities among these theories are, in our opinion, far greater than their differences. Eighth, by grouping these theories all within a common paradigm we call attention to their common essential elements. Ninth, providing a common paradigm label for these theories sets them apart from the earlier and more traditional task - person oriented and cognitively oriented leadership theories. Tenth, and finally, we believe that grouping these theories within a common paradigm with a label that is descriptive of their essential commonalties brings coherence to this literature in a meaningful and theoretically parsimonious way.
The theories of the neo-charismatic paradigm have been subjected to more than one hundred empirical tests. Collectively, the empirical findings demonstrate with surprising consistency that leaders described as charismatic, transformational, or visionary cause followers to become highly committed to the leader’s mission, to make significant personal sacrifices in the interest of the mission, and to perform above and beyond the call of duty. The findings also demonstrate that such leaders have positive effects on their organizations and followers, with effect sizes ranging from .35 to .50 for organizational performance effects, and from .40 to .80 for effects on follower satisfaction and organizational identification and commitment.
A recent meta-analysis by Lowe, Kroeck and Sivasubramaniam (1996) of 32 correlations between leader charisma as measured by the Bass (1985) Multifaceted Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) and independent ratings of leader effectiveness demonstrated a mean corrected correlation of .35. A second meta-analysis by these authors, based on 15 correlations between charisma and subordinates' ratings of their superiors' effectiveness, demonstrated a corrected correlation of .81. Corrected correlations between criterion variables and charisma were higher than corrected correlations between criterion variables and measures of intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, contingent reward, and management by exception. The effect sizes are usually at the lower ends of these ranges in studies that did not control for environmental effects (Lowe et al., 1996), and at the upper ends of these ranges under conditions of environmental threat, crisis, or uncertainty (House et al., 1991; Waldman, Ramirez & House, 1998).
Such findings have been demonstrated at several levels of analysis, including dyads (Howell & Frost, 1989), small informal groups (Howell & Higgins, 1990; Pillai & Meindl, 1991), formal work units (Curphy, 1992; Hater & Bass, 1988), major sub-units of large complex organizations (Howell & Avolio, 1993; Koene, Pennings & Schreuder, 1993), overall performance of complex organizations (Koh, Terborg & Steers, 1991; Roberts, 1985; Trice & Beyer, 1986; Waldman, Ramirez & House, 1998), and U.S. presidential administrations (House et al., 1991; Simonton, 1987).
The evidence supporting this genre of theory is also derived from a wide variety of samples, including informal leaders of task groups (Howell & Higgins, 1990), military officers (Bass, 1985), educational administrators (Koh, Terborg & Steers, 1991), supervisors (Hater & Bass, 1988), middle managers (Howell & Avolio, 1993), subjects in laboratory experiments (Howell & Frost, 1989), U.S. presidents (House et al., 1991), chief executive officers of Fortune 500 firms (Waldman, Ramirez & House, 1998), high-level executives of large Canadian firms (Javidan & Carl, 1997), Canadian government agencies (Javidan & Carl, 1997), and CEOs ofEgyptian firms (Messallam & House, 1997).
The evidence shows that the effects of charismatic leader behaviors are rather widely generalizable in the United States and that they may well generalize across cultures. For instance, studies based on the MLQ charisma scale (Bass & Avolio, 1989) have demonstrated similar findings in India (Pereria, 1987), Singapore (Koh, Terborg & Steers, 1991), The Netherlands (Koene et al., 1993), China, Japan (Bass, 1997), Germany (Geyer & Steyrer, 1994), and Canada (Javidan & Carl, 1997). Finally, a recent cross-cultural study has shown that the leader behaviors of the neo-charismatic leadership paradigm are universally included as prototypical behaviors of highly effective organizational leaders, having ratings consistently above six on a seven-point scale of attributed effectiveness for all 60 countries studied (House et al., 1998).
The studies cited above have dealt with leader behaviors and their effects. To date, we know very little about the processes by which leaders produce such results. We need to better understand the underlying motivations and psychological forces that result in the extraordinary effects of charismatic leaders.
In this paper, we address this gap by drawing on theories of change and construction and destruction of social meaning. We begin by discussing the differing motivations of followers and leaders, using Lewin's (1951) field theory to integrate them into a single theoretical framework. We present a model that depicts charisma as a social process. We then introduce semiotics as a means for operationalizing and testing the theory's predictions. The empirical results show that charismatic leaders employ consistent communication strategies for effecting social change.
THE MOTIVATIONAL UNDERPINNINGS OF CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP
Follower Motives - Frame Alignment
Shamir et al. (1993) recently advanced a theoretical explanation of an interpretive process, frame alignment (Snow et al., 1986), by which charismatic leaders motivate followers to embrace social change. Frame alignment (Snow et al., 1986) refers to the linkage of individual and leader interpretive orientations, such that some set of followers' interests, values, and beliefs and the leader's activities, goals, and ideology become congruent and complementary. The term "frame" denotes an interpretive scheme (Boal & Bryson, 1988; Goffman, 1974) that enables individuals to locate, perceive, and label occurrences within their life and the world at large. By rendering events or occurrences meaningful, frames function to organize experience and guide action, whether individual or collective.
To achieve frame alignment, charismatic leaders engage the self-concepts of followers in the mission articulated by the leader. Strong engagement of the self-concept of followers makes it cognitively dissonant for them not to behave in ways that further mission accomplishment. Charismatic leaders increase the intrinsic value of follower efforts in pursuit of mission accomplishment by linking effort and goals to valued aspects of the follower's selfconcept, thus harnessing the motivational forces of selfexpression, selfconsistency, selfesteem, and selfworth. Shamir et al. (1993) further argued that charismatic leaders change the salience hierarchy of values and identities within the follower's selfconcept, thus increasing the probability that these values and identities will be implicated in action. Finally, they argued that charismatic leaders increase selfefficacy and collective efficacy by positive evaluations, communicating higher performance expectations of followers, showing confidence in followers' ability to meet such expectations, and emphasizing followers' ties to the collective.
Shamir et al. (1993) specified communicative techniques that charismatic leaders employ to effect frame alignment and mobilize followers to action. They link present behaviors to past events by citing historical examples (Willner, 1984). They articulate an ideology clearly, often using labels and slogans. They provide a vivid and positive image of the future. Further, they amplify certain values and identities and suggest linkages between expected behaviors, amplified values and identities, and their vision of the future. By articulating an ideological vision and recruiting a number of followers who share the values of the vision, charismatic leaders provide for followers a sense of identity with the collective and a sense of efficacy resulting from membership in the collective. Articulation of high performance expectations, together with display of confidence in followers, results in enhancing both follower selfesteem and selfworth. Since such a shift in values and identities is socially based, followers’ resulting behavior should represent a shift from the instrumental to the moral, and from a concern with individual gains to a concern with contributions to a collective. We need a theory that explains how and why charismatic leaders engage followers in such transitions, and how and why followers become engaged.
Leader Motives - Frame Breaking
Sociologists (Eisenstadt, 1968), political scientists (Dow, 1969; Willner, 1984) and organizational behavior theorists (Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977; Nadler & Tushman, 1990) have described or defined charismatic leaders as breaking with traditional institutional authority and persuading followers to embrace innovative or revolutionary ideas. These definitions imply a motivation to change the status quo. Charismatic leaders are thus motivated to alter or break the "frame" or interpretive scheme by which individuals locate, perceive, and label occurrences in their life consistent with the status quo.
In contrast to the lack of constraint implied by a frame breaking motive, McClelland and his colleagues proposed a theory of leader constraint and activity inhibition. In a seminal work on leader motivation, they (McClelland et al., 1972) argued that high power motivation, in combination with low affiliative motivation and high activity inhibition, predisposes individuals to be effective leaders through satisfying their need for power by making socially desirable contributions to the larger collective rather than by pursuing self interests. McClelland and his colleagues supported their theory with a series of studies (1972, 1975, 1985) linking men's expression of power motive in the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) with a presumed measure of activity inhibition - the number of times the word "not" appeared in the stories written by subjects in response to TAT stimulus material. These studies presumed that the word "not" expressed moral constraint as reflected in ChristianJudaic caveats such as "Thou shalt not..." Subjects low in this presumed measure of activity inhibition expressed thoughts about the exercise of power that were focused on personal dominance or winning at someone else's expense. In contrast, subjects who scored high on activity inhibition expressed power imagery more often in terms of doing good for others, for humanity, or for some worthy and presumably moral cause. According to McClelland, individuals who have a high need for power and who also have high activity inhibition should be more effective leaders because they manifest their need for power in socially appropriate ways, while meeting the role demands of positions of influence such as those found in large complex organizations.
House et al. (1991) integrated McClelland's leader motive theory with House's (1977) theory of charismatic leadership in a model that includes the most important variables of both theories. House et al. (1991) tested their model using archival data relevant to all elected U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan. They studied the presidents' needs for power, achievement, affiliation, and activity inhibition. They measured these motives by applying the TAT coding scheme to the inaugural addresses of all U.S. presidents. The researchers assumed that inaugural addresses represented presidents' fantasies, hopes, and desires for their terms in office and therefore projections of their nonconscious motives. Three sets of dependent variables measured presidential success: 1) their effectiveness in implementing international, economic, and social/domestic policies; 2) presidential greatness as measured by opinion polls of present day political scientists; and 3) a measure of successful direct actions such as victory in war, great decisions, and near war avoidances such as the Cuban missile crisis. They interpreted their results as consistent with McClelland: Presidential need for power as measured by the use of the word "not" in presidential writings significantly predicted presidential charismatic behavior and effectiveness.
However, Spangler and House (1991) noted that presidents who used the word "not" most frequently were highly unconstrained in their behavior. They found that the use of the word "not" was associated with the manner in which presidents exercised power, rather than the ends for which they exercised power. Specifically, presidents who used the word "not" most frequently were more impatient, forceful, radical, demanding and active, and they frequently by-passed the chain of command. Spangler and House (1991) concluded that with respect to presidential speeches and writings, the count of the word "not" was not a measure of activity inhibition as defined by McClelland. Charismatic leaders who frequently invoked the word "not" appeared less disciplined and less psychologically constrained in the way they exercise power than other leaders.
The consistently strong ability of "nots" to predict charismatic and effective leadership suggests substantial practical importance in studying the meaning of "nots." However, Spangler and House's (1991) observation that presidents who used the word "not" most frequently were highly unconstrained in their behavior raises questions about McClelland’s (1975, 1985) interpretation that the frequent use of the word "not" reflects expressions of respect for institutionalized authority, selfdiscipline, and belief in a just world.
Since interest in charismatic leaders stems, in part, from their ability to bring about radical change, how does this fit with McClelland’s notion of restraint on action and respect for current institutions? Perhaps "not" does not represent unconscious motives. Perhaps, instead, it is a conscious rhetorical device in the repertoire of communicative tools consistently employed by charismatic leaders to bring about innovation and gain acceptance for revolutionary ideas. The use of “not” may thus reflect charismatic leaders’ motivations to break current frames through negation. Here again, we need a theory that better explains how and why charismatic leaders engage followers in radical change.