In the field of sociology, charismatic authority is a concept of organizational leadership wherein the authority of the leader derives from the personal charisma of the leader. In the tripartite classification of authority, the sociologist Max Weber contrasts charismatic authority (character, heroism, leadership, religious) against two other types of authority: (i) rational-legal authority (modern law, the sovereign state, bureaucracy) and (ii) traditional authority (patriarchy, patrimonialism, feudalism).
The Ancient Greek word charisma became known through the Pauline epistles to Christian communities in the first century of the common era, wherein the word charisma denoted and described a gift of divine origin that demonstrated the divine authority possessed by the early leaders of the Church. Weber developed the theological term and the concept of charisma into a secular term for the sociological study of organizations. [1] Terms derived from charisma include charismatic domination [2] and charismatic leadership. [3]
Weber applies the term charisma to
[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. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader. . . . How the quality in question would be ultimately judged from an ethical, aesthetic, or other such point of view is naturally indifferent for the purpose of definition. [4] [a]
In the modern era, some psychologists have defined charisma in terms of practical outcomes (i.e. charismatic leaders are effective). [5] However, such a definition results in circular in reasoning. [6] The conclusions derived such definitions (and measures) cannot be refuted given that the proponents claim something akin to if effective, therefore charismatic. [7] Charisma, however, can be studied scientifically if seen as a costly signal, using values, symbols, and emotions. [7] [8] [9] It was shown to correlate strongly with general intelligence [10] and observers infer that those signaling charisma are more competent [11] . Its economic value in consequential settings has also been scientifically examined. [12] Thus Weber's insights were valuable in naming the construct of charisma, although his definitions and insights did not allow for its scientific study. Modern social science however, has found supports for the notion that charismatic leaders can, under certain conditions, be very persuasive.
Weber interchanges authority and dominance
[H]as been considered in sociological terms as indicating the legitimate or socially approved use of power. It is the legitimate power which one person or a group holds and exercises over another. The element of legitimacy is vital to the notion of authority and is the main means by which authority is distinguished from the more general concept of power. Power can be exerted by the use of force or violence. Authority, by contrast, depends on the acceptance by subordinates of the right of those above them to give them orders or directives. Charismatic authority is often the most lasting of regimes because the leader is seen as infallible and any action against him will be seen as a crime against the state. Charismatic leaders eventually develop a cult of personality often not by their own doing.
[P]ower legitimized on the basis of a leader's exceptional personal qualities or the demonstration of extraordinary insight and accomplishment, which inspire loyalty and obedience from followers. [13]
Leadership is the power to diffuse a positive energy and a sense of greatness. As such, it rests almost entirely on the leader. The absence of that leader for any reason can lead to the authority's power dissolving. However, due to its idiosyncratic nature and lack of formal organization, charismatic authority depends much more strongly on the perceived legitimacy of the authority than Weber's other forms of authority. For instance, a charismatic leader in a religious context might require an unchallenged belief that the leader has been touched by God, in the sense of a prophet. [14] Should the strength of this belief fade, the power of the charismatic leader can fade quickly, which is one of the ways in which this form of authority shows itself to be unstable.
In contrast to the current popular use of the term charismatic leader, Weber saw charismatic authority not so much as character traits of the charismatic leader but as a relationship between the leader and his followers. The validity of charisma is founded on its "recognition" by the leader's followers (or "adepts" – Anhänger). His charisma risks disappearing if he is "abandoned by God" or if "his government doesn't provide any prosperity to those whom he dominates". [b]
Charismatic authority almost always endangers the boundaries set by traditional (coercive) or rational (legal) authority. It tends to challenge this authority, and is thus often seen as revolutionary. [16] [17] Usually this charismatic authority is incorporated into society. Hereby the challenge that it presents to society will subside. The way in which this happens is called routinization.[ citation needed ]
By routinization, the charismatic authority changes:
[C]harismatic authority is succeeded by a bureaucracy controlled by a rationally established authority or by a combination of traditional and bureaucratic authority. [18]
A religion which evolves its own priesthood and establishes a set of laws and rules is likely to lose its charismatic character and move towards another type of authority. For example, Muhammad, who had charismatic authority as "The Prophet" among his followers, was succeeded by the traditional authority and structure of Islam, a clear example of routinization.[ citation needed ]
In politics, charismatic rule is often found in various authoritarian states, autocracies, dictatorships and theocracies. To help to maintain their charismatic authority, such regimes will often establish a vast personality cult. When the leader of such a state dies or leaves office, and a new charismatic leader does not appear, such a regime is likely to fall shortly thereafter, unless it has become fully routinized. [15]
Because the authority is concentrated in one leader, the death of the charismatic leader would constitute the destruction of the government unless prior arrangements were made. A society that faces the end of their charismatic leader can choose to move to another format of leadership or to have a transference of charismatic authority to another leader by means of succession.
According to Max Weber, the methods of succession are: search, revelation, designation by original leader, designation by qualified staff, hereditary charisma, and office charisma. [19] These are the various ways in which an individual and a society can contrive to maintain the unique energy and nature of charisma in their leadership.
"The search for a new charismatic leader (takes place) on the basis of the qualities which will fit him for the position of authority." An example of this search method is the search for a new Dalai Lama. "It consists in a search for a child with characteristics which are interpreted to mean that he is a reincarnation of the Buddha." This search is an example of the way in which an original charismatic leader can be forced to "live on" through a replacement. [19]
"In this case the legitimacy of the new leader is dependent on the legitimacy of the technique of selection." The technique of selection is the modus operandi of the selection process. In ancient times, oracles were believed to have special access to "divine judgment" and thus their technique in selection was perceived to be legitimate. Their choice was imbued with the charismatic authority that came with the oracle's endorsement. [19]
In this form, the original holder of charismatic authority is perceived to have passed their authority to another. An example is Joseph Stalin's claim that Vladimir Lenin had designated him to be his successor as leader of the USSR. Insofar as people believed in this claim, Stalin gained Lenin's charismatic authority. [19]
"A successor (may be designated) by the charismatically qualified administrative staff... (T)his process should not be interpreted as 'election' or 'nomination'... It is not determined by merely a majority vote...Unanimity (is) often required." A case example of this form of succession is the papal conclave of cardinals to choose a new pope. The cardinals taking part in the papal conclave are viewed to be charismatically qualified by their Roman Catholic congregations and thus their choice is imbued with charismatic authority. [19]
Charisma can be perceived as "a quality transmitted by heredity". This method of succession is present in Kim Il Sung's charisma being passed on to his son, Kim Jong Il. This type of succession is a difficult undertaking and often results in a movement toward traditionalization and legalization in authority. [20] [19] [21]
"The concept of charisma may be transmitted by ritual means from one bearer to another...It involves a dissociation of charisma from a particular individual, making it an objective, transferable entity." Priestly consecration is believed to be a modus through which priestly charisma to teach and perform other priestly duties is transferred to a person. In this way, priests inherit priestly charisma and are subsequently perceived by their congregations as having the charismatic authority that comes with the priesthood. [19]
Weber's model of charismatic leadership giving way to institutionalization is endorsed by several academic sociologists.
Eileen Barker discusses the tendency for new religious movements to have founders or leaders who wield considerable charismatic authority and are believed to have special powers or knowledge. Charismatic leaders are unpredictable, Barker says, for they are not bound by tradition or rules and they may be accorded by their followers the right to pronounce on all aspects of their lives. Barker warns that in these cases the leader may lack any accountability, require unquestioning obedience, and encourage a dependency upon the movement for material, spiritual and social resources. [22]
George D. Chryssides asserts that not all new religious movements have charismatic leaders, and that there are differences in the hegemonic styles among those movements that do. [23]
Len Oakes, an Australian psychologist who wrote a dissertation about charisma, had eleven charismatic leaders fill in a psychometric test, which he called the adjective checklist, and found them as a group quite ordinary. Following the psychoanalyst Heinz Kohut, Oakes argues that charismatic leaders exhibit traits of narcissism and also argues that they display an extraordinary amount of energy, accompanied by an inner clarity unhindered by the anxieties and guilt that afflict more ordinary people. He did, however, not fully follow Weber's framework of charismatic authority. [24] [ clarification needed ]
| Charismatic | Traditional | Legal-Rational | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type of ruler | Charismatic leader | Dominant personality | Functional superiors or bureaucratic officials |
| Position determined by | Having a dynamic personality | Established tradition or routine | Legally established authority |
| Ruled using | Extraordinary qualities and exceptional powers | Acquired or inherited (hereditary) qualities | Virtue of rationally established norms, decrees, and other rules and regulations |
| Legitimized by | Victories and success to community | Established tradition or routine | General belief in the formal correctness of these rules and those who enact them are considered a legitimized authority |
| Loyalty | Interpersonal & personal allegiance and devotion | Based on traditional allegiances | To authority/rules |
| Cohesion | Emotionally unstable and volatile | Feeling of common purpose | Abiding by rules (see Merton's theory of deviance) |
| Leadership | Rulers and followers (disciples) | Established forms of social conduct | Rules, not rulers |
Leadership, is defined as the ability of an individual, group, or organization to "lead", influence, or guide other individuals, teams, or organizations.
Authority is commonly understood as the legitimate power of a person or group over other people. In a civil state, authority may be practiced by legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government, each of which has authority and is an authority. The term "authority" has many nuances and distinctions within various academic fields ranging from sociology to political science.
Political sociology is an interdisciplinary field of study concerned with exploring how governance and society interact and influence one another at the micro to macro levels of analysis. Interested in the social causes and consequences of how power is distributed and changes throughout and amongst societies, political sociology's focus ranges across individual families to the state as sites of social and political conflict and power contestation.
The path–goal theory, also known as the path–goal theory of leader effectiveness or the path–goal model, is a leadership theory developed by Robert House, an Ohio State University graduate, in 1971 and revised in 1996. The theory states that a leader's behavior is contingent to the satisfaction, motivation and performance of his or her subordinates. The revised version also argues that the leader engages in behaviors that complement subordinate's abilities and compensate for deficiencies. According to Robert House and John Antonakis, the task-oriented elements of the path–goal model can be classified as a form of instrumental leadership.
In political science, legitimacy is the right and acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law or a regime. Whereas authority denotes a specific position in an established government, the term legitimacy denotes a system of government—wherein government denotes "sphere of influence". An authority viewed as legitimate often has the right and justification to exercise power. Political legitimacy is considered a basic condition for governing, without which a government will suffer legislative deadlock(s) and collapse. In political systems where this is not the case, unpopular regimes survive because they are considered legitimate by a small, influential elite. In Chinese political philosophy, since the historical period of the Zhou dynasty, the political legitimacy of a ruler and government was derived from the Mandate of Heaven, and unjust rulers who lost said mandate therefore lost the right to rule the people.
"Politics as a Vocation" is an essay by German economist and sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920). It originated in the second lecture of a series he gave in Munich to the "Free Students Union" of Bavaria on 28 January 1919. This happened during the German Revolution when Munich itself was briefly the capital of the Bavarian Socialist Republic. Weber gave the speech based on handwritten notes which were transcribed by a stenographer. The essay was published in an extended version in July 1919, and translated into English only after World War II. The essay is today regarded as a classic work of political science and sociology.
Rational-legal authority is a form of leadership in which the authority of an organization or a ruling regime is largely tied to legal rationality, legal legitimacy and bureaucracy. The majority of the modern states of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries are rational-legal authorities, according to those who use this form of classification.
Traditional authority is a form of leadership in which the authority of an organization or a regime is largely tied to tradition or custom. Reasons for the given state of affairs include belief that tradition is inherently valuable and a more general appeal to tradition.
The German sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) distinguished three ideal types of legitimate political leadership/domination/authority . He wrote about these three types of domination both in his essay "The Three Types of Legitimate Rule", which was published in his 1921 masterwork Economy and Society, and in his classic 1919 speech "Politics as a Vocation" :
Benjamin David Zablocki was an American professor of sociology at Rutgers University where he taught sociology of religion and social psychology. He published widely on the subject of charismatic religious movements, cults, and brainwashing.
Transformational leadership is a theory of leadership when a leader's behaviors influence their followers and inspire them to perform beyond their perceived capabilities. Transformational leadership inspires people to achieve unexpected or remarkable results. Transformational leaders work with teams or followers beyond their immediate self-interests to identify necessary change. They create a vision to guide the change through influence and inspiration. These changes are executed in tandem with committed group members and involve self-interests. This elevates the follower's ideals, maturity levels, and concerns for achievement. Transformational leadership is an integral part of the Full Range Leadership Model and gives workers autonomy over specific jobs, as well as the authority to make decisions once they have been trained. This induces a positive change in the followers' attitudes and the organization. Transformational leaders typically perform four distinct behaviors, known as The 4 I's. These behaviors are inspirational motivation, idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.
Legitimation crisis refers to a decline in the confidence of administrative functions, institutions, or leadership. The term was first introduced in 1973 by Jürgen Habermas, a German sociologist and philosopher. Habermas expanded upon the concept, claiming that with a legitimation crisis, an institution or organization does not have the administrative capabilities to maintain or establish structures effective in achieving their end goals. The term itself has been generalized by other scholars to refer not only to the political realm, but to organizational and institutional structures as well. While there is not unanimity among social scientists when claiming that a legitimation crisis exists, a predominant way of measuring a legitimation crisis is to consider public attitudes toward the organization in question.
Various sociological classifications of religious movements have been proposed by scholars. In the sociology of religion, the most widely used classification is the church-sect typology. The typology is differently construed by different sociologists, and various distinctive features have been proposed to characterise churches and sects. On most accounts, the following features are deemed relevant:
In a notable study of power conducted by social psychologists John R. P. French and Bertram Raven in 1959, power is divided into five separate and distinct forms. They identified those five bases of power as coercive, reward, legitimate, referent, and expert. This was followed by Raven's subsequent addition in 1965 of a sixth separate and distinct base of power: informational power.
Charisma is a personal quality of magnetic charm or appeal.
John Antonakis is a professor of organizational behavior at the Faculty of Business and Economics of the University of Lausanne and former editor-in-chief of The Leadership Quarterly.
Trait leadership is defined as integrated patterns of personal characteristics that reflect a range of individual differences and foster consistent leader effectiveness across a variety of group and organizational situations.
Authentic leadership, while having no formal or unequivocal definition, is a growing field in academic research. The idea has also been embraced by leaders and leadership coaches, who view it as an alternative to leaders who emphasize profit and share price over people and ethics. There appears to be some consensus in the literature about the qualities an authentic leader must have. These include self-awareness, the ability to trust one's thoughts, feelings, motives and values, self reflection, responsiveness to feedback, and the ability to resolve conflict in honest and non-manipulative ways. An authentic leader is supposedly able to further the success of an organization within the confines of social and ethical values, even when that seems impossible. Authentic leadership is claimed to be a superior model due to the greater trust and motivation it invokes in subordinates. Much of the evidentiary basis for authentic leadership has been called into question and papers have been retracted.
The Leadership Quarterly is a bimonthly peer-reviewed multidisciplinary social science journal. It is dedicated to the scientific study of leadership. The journal has a broad focus and publishers papers from various fields of social science as well as of biological science. The journal also publishes methodological advances.
Ronit Kark is a full professor of leadership and organizational psychology in the Department of Psychology at Bar-Ilan University, Israel, and the founder and former director of the 'Gender in the Field' Graduate Program at the Gender Studies department of Bar-Ilan. She is a distinguished research professor at the University of Exeter Business School and an affiliate scholar at the Center For Gender in Organizations (CGO) at Simmons University, Boston.
Informational notes
Citations
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)Bibliography