Example research essay topic: Theories On Qualities Of Leaders And Followers - 1,332 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

There appears to be a particular trend in research on leadership. Most of it subsumes vision within charisma. Some scholars even suggest that it is the vision that leads to the attribution of charisma to the leaders in the first place. However, we think that charisma and vision are two distinct concepts and as such a leader may be charismatic but not visionary, or visionary but not charismatic, both charismatic and visionary, or neither.

To us, charisma is an emotion-based construct or a heart thing and charismatic leaders understand their social environment very well and are masters of social skills. Vision, on the other hand, is a competence-based construct, a combination of intellectual ability and experience, largely a head thing. In this paper, we distinguish between charisma and vision in detail and suggest that some of the confusion clouding the new genre of leadership theories becomes clear once we treat charisma and vision separately. LEADERSHIP AND FOLLOWERSHIP There is a particular trend in research on leadership; much of it subsumes vision within charisma (Weber, 1968; House, 1977; Bass, 1985; Bennis & Names, 1985; Conger & Kanu ngo, 1987; Avolio & Bass, 1988; House, Spangler & Woycke, 1991).

One possible explanation for twining of the two concepts is that many well-known charismatic leaders had powerful visions. And, that is why charisma and vision exist together in our implicit theories on leadership. Some scholars (Weber, 1968; Conger, 1989) even suggest that it is vision that leads to the attribution of charisma to the leaders in the first place. Conger (1989: 92) described charismatic leaders as meaning makers and noted that the amount of charisma attributed to a leader increases as the leaders vision becomes more idealized in the minds of followers.

In a review of charismatic leadership literature, Connor et al. (1995: 530) noted that vision is central to charisma and that charisma involves the ability to provide a compelling vision. Similarly, Graham (1991: 105) observed that an ideal leader is visionary, practical and inspirational... charisma is a term frequently used to describe leaders who possess these ideal qualities. Sashkin (1988) argued that a charismatic leader articulates a vision for the organization, and this vision, in turn, provides the framework for organisational strategies. Contrary to the views of the above authors, we believe that charisma and vision are two distinct concepts and as such a leader may be charismatic but not visionary, or visionary but not charismatic, or both charismatic and visionary, or neither. This paper is organized as follows.

First, we discuss the confusion in neo-charismatic leadership theories that arose from lumping charisma and vision together into a single construct. Second, we discuss how prominent charismatic, visionary, and transformational leadership theories subsume vision within charisma or vice versa. Third, a number of hypotheses on charisma and vision are presented. In the fourth section, the methods used in the study are discussed.

This is followed by discussion of results along with their implications. Confusion in the neo-charismatic theories of leadership Shamir, House, and Arthur (1993) and House and Shamir (1993) clubbed charismatic, visionary, and transformational leadership theories together and labeled them as a new genre of theories. Shamir, Zakay, and Popper (1998) called them neo-charismatic theories because, according to the authors, charisma is a central concept in all of them, either explicitly or implicitly. House and Shamir (1993) lamented that a major problem concerning this new genre of theories was the lack of a coherent framework into which various versions of charismatic leadership theories could be integrated. We argue that part of this problem lies in combining charisma and vision into a single construct.

To us, the three types of leadership theories charismatic, visionary, and transformational - are distinct. For example, the focus of charismatic leadership should be on charisma and not on vision. Similarly, visionary leadership research should focus on vision, and not assume that a visionary person possesses charisma as well. The transformational leadership theory becomes a special case of our charisma-vision distinction where a leader has high vision and high charisma.

By explicitly separating charisma from vision, it becomes possible to place charismatic, visionary, and transformational theories into a logical framework, give each of them its proper place, and also clarify their relationships with each other. We believe that our distinction is useful in furthering the understanding of the different notions of charismatic leadership. Yukl (1998: 311) has noted: How to differentiate between positive and negative charismatic leaders has been a problem for leadership theory. Other scholars argue that charisma has both bright and dark sides (e. g. , Graham, 1988; 1990; Shamir, House & Arthur, 1993). Our point is that charisma is a value-neutral entity; it can be put to good use or be misused by leaders.

Charisma can be beneficial, if it is used to transform an organization on the brink of bankruptcy. On the other hand, it can be quite destructive if it is used by individuals to achieve their own selfish goals. Charisma in itself is a neutral but powerful tool. It is the vision of the leader that gives charisma expression and direction to either benefit others or create mayhem around them. Apart from positive versus negative charismatic influences, there is also differentiation between personalized and socialized charismatic leaders (McClelland, 1975; Conger, 1989; 1990). Personalized charismatic leaders use their charisma effectively to achieve their own ends.

Socialized charismatic leaders, on the other hand, use the power of their charisma to achieve organizational (or societal) goals. As far as charisma is concerned, both types of leader have charisma and both can be effective in what they want to achieve. Our argument is consistent with Basis (1990). He noted: Charismatics can foster antisocial or pro-social behavior. One cannot exclude one or the other for valid scientific reasons; the dynamics may be similar (p. 187). We believe that what basically distinguishes the personalized and socialized charismatic leaders is the kind of vision they have.

Review of theories on charismatic and visionary leadership This section has three parts. The first part presents a brief review of the six well-known charismatic theories: Webers concept of charisma, Houses theory of charismatic leadership, Conger and Kanu ngos behavioral theory, Shamir, House and Arthurs self-concept based motivation theory, Minds notion of social contagion, and Basis transformational leadership. In the second part, two visionary leadership theories by Sasbkin, and West and Mintz berg are discussed. In the last section, we summarize the common themes in the charismatic and visionary leadership theories.

Charismatic Theories Weber (1968) first introduced the concept of charisma, which he defined as a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities (j, 24 1). He saw charismatic leaders as mystical, personally magnetic, and gifted (Avolio & Yam marino, 1990) and these leaders are able to attract committed followers because they have visions or dreams that appeal to the followers. According to Weber, charisma is a God-given gift and an element of crisis is needed to bring out this gift. He subsumed vision within charisma as he defined a charismatic leader as one who possesses eminent visions and the ability to convey these visions to the masses.

House first came up with theory of charismatic leadership in 1977. He argued that charismatic leadership needs to be studied in terms of measurable or testable constructs. Later, House, Spangler, and Woycke (1991) refined Houses original theory of charismatic leadership and presented a more complete conceptualization of the theory. They defined charismatic leadership in terms of three constituents: (1) effects on followers, (2) leader personality and behavior, and (3) attributions of charisma to leaders by followers and observers. Charismatic leadership is described as an interactive process between followers and their leader in the first constituent.

This interaction results in the attraction of followers to the leader and strong internalization of the leaders values and goals by followers. Over tune, the followers devel...

Research essay sample on Theories On Qualities Of Leaders And Followers