Types of Leadership 1 Running Head: LEADERSHIP AND THEIR CHARACTERISTICS

Types of Leadership and Their Characteristics Mark Clauburg Nova Southeastern University

Types of Leadership 2 Abstract Charismatic leadership is the ability to create significant influence upon followers of a group or organization and can be characterized in terms of follower, cultural, and situational aspects. Studies advise that charismatic leadership can have positive or negative effects on the progress of an organization. Charisma also plays a major role in transformational leadership. Research provides arguments for both transactional and transformational leadership in exploring their effectiveness and making distinctions between each style.

Types of Leadership 3 Types of Leadership and Their Characteristics Max Weber introduced charismatic leadership in the early twentieth century. Since then the charismatic dimension of leadership has received an increasing interest among scholars. Charismatic leadership is based on an ability to exercise diffuse and intense influence over the beliefs, values, behavior, and performance of others through his or her own behavior, beliefs, and personal example (Sosik, 2001). Bass (1990) reports that charismatic leaders take on a variety of characteristics. He cites that charismatic leaders display emotional expressiveness, self-confidence, self-determination, freedom from internal conflict, and a strong conviction of moral righteousness (Bass, 1990). Charismatic leaders are expressive in style. Bass (1990) suggests these leaders can motivate followers without words. Leaders simply assume a presence that is powerful, confident, and dynamic (Bass, 1990). Their ability to use facial expressions and nonverbal cues gives them a more favorable image with their followers compared to other leaders. Bass (1990) cites examples of such cues as rate and fluency of speech, gestural fluency and smiles, contact with the body and inward-directed gestures. High levels of self-confidence exude from charismatic leaders. Studies show that charismatic leaders rate themselves highly on self-confidence (Krishnan, 2001). These leaders are confident in their ability and public image, and this confidence is directly projected onto their loyal followers (Bass, 1990). Hesselbein cites that Franklin Roosevelts high level of confidence proved contagious. Roosevelt was able to spread his confidence first to his cabinet and assistants and later to the American public (Hesselbein, 1999). Charismatic leaders show intense determination in assuming their responsibilities as a leader. They avoid inner conflicts and maintain their confidence and determination after

Types of Leadership 4 difficult setbacks (Bass, 1990). Franklin Roosevelt with his supreme confidence was able to use defeat as an opportunity to learn from his mistakes, try new things and eventually succeed (Hesselbein, 1999). Furthermore, charisma is cited by Bass as an endowment of leaders by their followers of a high degree of esteem and referent power (Bass, 1990). Therefore, charismatic leadership cannot become successful unless the attitudes of the followers are taken into account (Atik, 1994). There are numerous characteristics that contribute to charismatic leaders and their relationships with followers. Whether the relationship is based on the desire for identity, idealization of the leader, mystique or salvation, characteristics of followers play an essential part in charismatic leadership. Bass (1990) cites a connection between charismatic leadership and followers who have an extreme attraction to the leader, involving traits such as devotion, awe, reverence, and blind faith. There is a direct connection between the level of attraction between followers and leaders and the effectiveness of charismatic leadership. Bass (1990) states that charismatic leaders attract loyal followers in exchange for a sense of security. Rationale for the attraction of followers to charismatic leaders exists on two extremes. For example, Charles Manson, to this day, is still capable of projecting a significant magnetism on followers based on the distrust and pessimism towards societal norms. On the other hand, charismatic leaders such as Malcolm X attracted loyal followers who sympathize and relate to a moral or social struggle for equality and righteousness (Bass, 1990). Charismatic leaders gain a great amount of trust, while followers internalize their beliefs (Sosik, 2001). Moreover, the commitment of the follower to a charismatic leader may originate from a need for the improvement of ones character. Bass (1990) cites that charismatic leaders

Types of Leadership 5 become the ideal figure for which followers attempt to mold their self-image after. Bass suggests, Charisma is in the eye of the beholder, and, therefore, is relative to the beholder. The level of popularity of a leader has an impact on the emotional response of followers (Bass, 1990). Charismatic leaders engage followers with energy, self-confidence, assertiveness, ambition, and opportunities seized. Followers build a high level of trust and aspire to improve their own image by observing the self-confidence and passion of charismatic leaders (Bass, 1990). Charismatic leaders can also be characterized by having what followers believe to be larger-than-life missions. Humphreys (2002) cites that followers see charismatic leaders as having superhuman qualities. Charismatic leaders can become almost God-like to their followers (Hogg, 2001). These leaders create a strong emotional bond with loyal followers. For example, Martin Luther King was realizing a dream and extended the leadershipfollower relationship beyond normal boundaries (Bass, 1990). Charismatic leaders instill a sense of mission and pride within their followers (Humphreys, 2002). Great sympathy swept the United States following the news of John F. Kennedys assassination. According to Bass, Kennedy was seen as a dragon slayer, savior, and creator of a new life on Earth for the disadvantaged. The idolization of Kennedy created an image that was grandiose and supernatural (Bass, 1990). Humphreys (2002) suggests organizational success will continue to reside within the ability of individual leaders to enhance the performance of their subordinate followers. Leaders within an organization are in a position capable of providing great influence on followers. Studies show that leaders within organizations can aid, maintain, or negatively affect the performance of followers (Humphreys, 2002). More studies propose that leaders

Types of Leadership 6 should become change-oriented and charismatic in nature in order to be effective (Hogg, 2001). According to Bass, organizational settings provide charismatic leaders with the opportunity to show their followers an attractive perspective of their outcome goals. Leaders create the attraction by using themselves as the model by which their followers should follow. For example, a survey suggests that a group of cadets from the U. S. Air Force Academy idealized their squadron leaders, who, in turn, were characterized as being charismatic leaders (Bass, 1990). These charismatic leaders are able to build a very high level of organizational commitment (Sosik, 2001). Charismatic leaders within an organization may be sensitive to the needs of their followers. Rowden (2000) suggests that followers gain a sense of obligation when they feel that their needs have been satisfied. People are attracted to organizations where leaders seek to fulfill the needs of its followers (Rowden, 2000) and focus the attention away from the organizational routine (Pooper, 1994). On the other hand, negative side effects may arise from charismatic leadership in an organizational setting. Charismatic leaders may not be the only solution for success in an organization, and may, in fact, hinder organizational progress in several ways (Landrum, 2000). Bass implies that charisma may bring about the blind attraction of followers by untalented leaders. Followers tend to overlook the weaknesses of the leaders they idolize. These leaders may be superficially charismatic and not able to live up to the adoration of their followers (Bass, 1990). Bass cites that the flawless perception of charismatic leaders by followers may misconstrue reality. Followers may suspend what is real in favor of these

Types of Leadership 7 charismatic leadership qualities, affecting sound judgment and decision-making skills (Bass, 1990). Hogg (2001) suggests that charismatic leaders may stand out too much against lower-level followers, creating a lower social identity for followers. This disparity can cause power struggles within an organization and lead to the attributional effect. A transformation of leader influence to power also becomes more likely. Leaders with increased status have increase opportunities to exploit this situation, and abuse of power is more probable (Hogg, 2001). Another negative impact of charismatic leadership is the problem of leader succession. The possible inability to maintain what a leader has instilled once that leader leaves the organization creates a dilemma for the organization (Landrum, 2000). Landrum cites that charismatic leadership cannot be learned or taught. Not every one has the innate ability to assume the role of a charismatic leader Therefore, losing such a leader can be devastating to an organizations mission. There is small likelihood of successfully replacing such reputable charismatic leaders as Chryslers Lee Iacocca or General Motorss Jack Welch (Landrum, 2000). Bass cites that there is a major shortage of charismatic leaders in business and industry (Bass, 1990). Although many successful leaders may show qualities of both, studies confirm that both transformational and transactional leadership exist as separate and differing styles (Avolio, 1999). There are several distinctions between transformational and transactional leadership. Bass suggests, This distinction has become of considerable importance to the study of leadership in general. The communication styles, effectiveness, follower

Types of Leadership 8 satisfaction, consistency and performance of each style of leadership lend to these differences (Bass, 1990). Bass cites that the transactional leader works within the existing framework in exchange for promises for votes, while the transformational leader moves to change the framework. Transactional leaders communicate with followers in the form of bargaining (Bass, 1990). There is a mutual dependence between leader and follower in the transactional leadership relationship. They promise to exchange one thing for another (Humphreys, 2002). Therefore, a link exists between effort and reward (Popper, 1994). Transformational leaders are more concerned with the higher level needs of their followers. These leaders make an effort to influence their followers on an intellectual level. The relationship becomes more than the one-way interaction experienced by transactional leaders and followers (Atik, 1994). For example, transformational leaders help followers look at old problems in new ways (Humphreys, 2002). Bass suggests that through this relationship levels of aspiration are raised, legitimated, and turned into political demands (Bass, 1990). In turn, followers of transformational leader become less concerned with the self-interests that rule a transactional relationship (Humphreys, 2002). Transformational leadership may be more effective than transactional leadership. Studies show higher performance of followers with transformational leaders (Kelloway, 2000). Bass cites that leaders who reinforce their followers and accept suggestions have achieved higher performance results. A study involving 103 sales managers and 360 salesmen proposes that transformational leaders who allow self-direction and self-control among followers create a more effective work environment (Bass, 1990). Transformational leaders become more accessible because of their open communication with followers and

Types of Leadership 9 their acceptance of feedback (Humphreys, 2002). A study of 45 business students dividing into 3 firms that used 3 different leadership styles produced results that further support the effectiveness of the transformational leader. Of the 3 firms in the study, the one led by the transformational leader developed the largest amount of new products (Bass, 1990). There are also differences in follower satisfaction among organizations run by transformational leaders and transactional leaders. Transactional styles of leadership have produced less commitment and loyalty among followers, whereas transformational leaders are able to boost morale and approval of subordinates (Bass, 1990). There exists a close proximity of transformational leadership results in the increased satisfaction of followers (Humphreys, 2002). Studies support the existence of follower satisfaction within a transformational leadership situation (Kelloway, 2000). Furthermore, transformational leadership styles show increased engagement of followers (Leithwood, 2000). Moreover, transactional leadership does not provide the individual attention that transformation leaders provide in the relationships with their followers (Humphreys, 2002). Studies suggest that feedback increases the success of transformational leadership (Kelloway, 2000). Others argue that the charismatic component found in transformational leaders is not completely necessary to succeed as a leader. Leaders who are too transformational may be missing some key transactional leadership qualities that are key the stability of the organization (Leithwood, 2000). Transformational leadership has been defined as superior leadership performance that occurs when leaders broaden and elevate the interests of their employees to look beyond their own self-interest for the good of the group (Kelloway, 2000). According to Humphreys

Types of Leadership 10 (2002), charisma is considered the most essential characteristic of the transformational leader. Charisma is very necessary in transformational leadership roles (Humphreys, 2002). Charismatic qualities of transformational leaders allow them to make the big picture seem within reach to their followers (Kets De Vries, 1998). Environments that deviate from transactional leadership and move toward charismatic and transformational leadership are more open to follower communication and major change, which may lead to high levels of anxiety for those involved. Kets De Vries (1998) suggests that charismatic leaders are agents for change. This situation creates a strong psychological need for images of charismatic leaders (Popper, 1994). The proximity of the charismatic leader is not nearly as important as the image perceived by the followers (Popper, 1994). Charisma includes sensitivity to followers feelings and becomes necessary in a transformational leadership environment in order to prevent resentment (Romm, 1999). Studies suggest that sensitivity to follower needs directly effects follower commitment (Rowden, 2000). Conclusion Charisma plays an important role in transformational leadership and can have negative and positive effects on organizational effectiveness. Transactional and transformational leadership also play significant roles in organizational communication with followers, and each style can be argued as the most effective. Although characterizing charismatic leadership may be an exhausting task, the results, as noted, can be quite interesting and applicable to personal situations.

Types of Leadership 11

References Atik, Y. (1994). The Conductor and the orchestra: interactive aspects of the leadership process. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 15(1), 22-28. Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M. & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441-462. Bass, B. M. (1981). Handbook of leadership. New York: The Free Press. Hesselbein, F. & Cohen, P. M. (1999). Leader to leader: Enduring insights on leadership from the Drucker Foundations award-winning journal. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Humphreys, J. H. (2002). Transformational leader behavior, proximity, and successful services marketing. Journal of Services Marketing, 16(6), 487-502. Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 184-200. Kelloway, E. K. Barling, J. & Helleur, J. (2000). Enhancing transformational leadership: The roles of training and feedback. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 21(3), 145-149. Kets De Vries, M. F. R. (1998). Charisma in action: The transformational abilities of Virgins Richard Branson and ABBs Percy Barnevik. Organizational Dynamics, 26(3), 7-20. Krishnan, V. R. (2001). Value systems of transformational leaders. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 22(3), 126-132. Leithwood, K. & Jantzi D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement in school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 112-129. Landrum, N. E., Howell J. P. & Paris L. (2000). Leadership for strategic change. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 21(3), 150-156. Popper, M. & Zakkai E. (1994). Transactional, charismatic, and transformational leadership: Conditions conducive to their predominance. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 15(6), 3-7. Romm, C. & Pliskin, N. (1999). The role of charismatic leadership in diffusion and

Types of Leadership 12 implementation of e-mail. Journal of Management Development, 18(3), 273-291. Rowden, R. W. (2000). The relationship between charismatic leadership behaviors and and organizational commitment. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 21(1), 30-35. Sosik, J. J. (2001). Self-other agreement on charismatic leadership: Relationships with work attitudes and managerial performance. Group and Organizational Management, 26(4), 484-511.