212

REMAINING CHALLENGES

the viewpoints of others and the development of leadership ability in folIowers. As Musser (1987) has suggested, we might even classify charismatic leaders as positive or negative by their orientation toward satisfying their own needs versus those of their followers. For example, negative charismatics presumably emphasize a devotion to themselves over their mission. They also are likely to promote personal identification and dependence on themselves over a more straightforward endorsement and intemalization of the values and ideological goals they are promoting. Positive charismatic leaders, on the other hand, are more likely to emphasize the mission rather than themselves and to seek intemalization over personal identification. Howell and House (1993; House & Howell, 1992) have gone so far as to speculate that there is a unique set of personality characteristics and behaviors that distinguish these positive and negative forms of charismatic leadershipor as they term them, socialized and personalized charisma. Their theory holds that although the socialized charismatic leader has a high need for power, it is counterbalanced with high activity inhibition, low authoritarianism, an intemal locus of control, high self-esteem, and low Machiavellianism. These balancing characteristics shape the socialized leaders behavior such that it emphasizes the collective interests of followers. The leaders tendency is to govem others through more egalitarian means, to work through established channels ofauthority, to address followers needs, and to approach motivation through empowerment. In contrast, the personalized leader has a high need for power that is instead coupled with low activity inhibition, high authoritarianism, an extemal locus of control, low self-esteem, high narcissism, and high Machiavellianism. 'II icnc characiciistics promotc leadership behavior that is largely self-serving. Sili li Icmlcia govern in it totalituriun inanncr, discourage questioning of their (IcH'iM ONH, ndviKiilr goals that largcly benefit themselves, disregard legitimate iiiNtitiilioiuil clianncls, and use punishments and rewards to motivate. Among tlicu followers, lhcy prefer to foster dependence and unquestioning obedience over independent thinking. Our position on this typology is that it is unlikely that pure types exist, which Hovvell (1996, p. 26) similarly acknowledges. Observations of leaders in organizations suggest that their behaviors reflect varying degrees of the negative and positive forms of charismatic leadership. As observers, we often attribute negative and positive forms of charisma to leaders based on the presence of a dominant form in their behaviors. One also can perceive that both identification and intemalization processes occur simultaneously among followers of both types of charismatic leaders. Follower identification results when the leaders

The Shadovv Side of Charisma

213

behaviors and personal characteristics are valued and considered worthy of imitation. Follower intemalization occurs when the leaders articulated vision or mission is considered an expression of the followers>own deep-seated values. Negative charismatics often are more successful in inducing identification than intemalization, whereas positive charismatics are better able to induce both identification and intemalization. We find it useful to distinguish between negative and positive forms of charismatic leadership by the extent to which the leaders goals and activities are self-serving as opposed to altruistic. This distinction helps us to understand the ethical nature of charismatic leadership behavior (Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996b). The self-serving goals and activities of the negative charismatic leaders are questionable on ethical grounds, whereas the altruistic goals and behaviors of positive charismatic leaders are considered morally desirable. Such consideration of moral desirability brings out a number of additional dimensions (beyond those identified by Howell and House, 1993) on which the two charis matic leadership forms may differ. These dimensions are identified in the following section.

THE ETHICAL NATURE OF CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP FORMS How can we judge the two charismatic leadership forms to be ethical or unethical? To address this question, we must first specify what we mean by the term ethical The term means that which is morally good, or that which is considered morally rightas opposed to that which is legally or procedurally right. According to Thomas Aquinas, the moral goodness of behaviors should be judged on the basis of the objective act itself\ the subjective motive o f the actor, and the context in which the act is performed. The ethical nature of charismatic leadership ih organizational contexts manifests itself on three di mensions: the leaders motives\ the leaders influence strategies\ and the leaders character formation. As summarized in Table 7.1, charismatic leaders exhibit ethical leadership when they (1) strive to operate vvith an altruistic intent, (2) utilize empowering rather than controlling strategies to influence followers, and (3) endeavor to cultivate virtues and abstain from vices to build their ovvn inner strength. As suggested earlier, the overarching motive of the positive charismatic leaders is altruistic intent, as opposed to egotistic intent of the negative charismatic leaders. Positive charismatic leaders are truly motivated by

214

REMAINING CHALLENGES

TABLE 7.1 Contrasting Two Forms of Charismatic Leadership Positive Form

Under!ying motive Manifest needs Altruistic (intent to benefit others) Affiliative interest Institutional power Social achievement Self-discipline/ self-development Empowerment Emphasis on intemalization of vision by changing followers ore attitudes, beliefs, and values Ethical

Negative Form
Egotistic (intent to benefit self) Affiliative assurance Personal power Personal achievement Self-aggrandizement Control Emphasis on compliance behavior and identification with the leader Unethical

Influence strategy Leader objective in terms of behavioral outcomes in followers Moral values and influence

SOURCE: Adapted from Kanungo and Mendonca (1996b).

a concem for others, and their actions invariably are guided primarily by the criterion of benefit to others even if it results in some cost to themselves. These leaders direct and guide followers toward goals and objectives that benefit the organization and its members, as well as the society at large. The altruistic intent of these leaders is manifested in their affiliative interest (Boyatzis, 1982), in their high need for (< institutional power (McClelland & Bumham, 1976), and in their social achievement motive (Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996b). The positive charismatic leaders affiliative interest is expressed in their relationship with ali the various stakeholders consistent with the demands of the organization. The affiliative interest stems from the leaders recognition that the objectives of the organization can be achieved through information sharing and beliefs in the task competencies of organizational members. On the other hand, negative charismatic leaders are high on affiliative assurance, and they emphasize relationships prompted by their deep sense of personal insecurity, which causes them to engage in behaviors that are inappropriate and improper to the demands of the situation. For example, such leaders behave in secretive ways, may not share information with their subordinates, and often reward or threaten subordinates for the sole reason of controlling them to serve their own self-interest. Positive charismatic leaders have high institutional power needs as opposed to the high personal power needs of negative charismatic leaders (Howell & House, 1993). A leader with high personal power need clearly places the interests of self before those of others and may do so at considerable cost to others; the

The Shadow Side o f Charisma

215

personal power need is the antithesis of altruism. On the other hand, a leader high in institutional power needs shows a morally desirable form of altruism by serving others even at a cost to the self. Negative charismatic leaders are driven by personal achievement motives and engage in behaviors that benefit themselves rather than others. On the other hand, positive charismatic leaders are driven by the social achievement motive. They show a concern for others and initiate efforts in terms of articulation of individual and collective capability, concern for a better quality of life and need to engage in meaningful organizational and social action in order to influence the environment (Mehta, 1994, p. 171). Motivated by social achievement, these leaders generally tend toward efforts that primarily benefit others and therefore reflect real altruism. In their efforts for personal character development, the two charismatic leadership forms also differ. The negative charismatic leaders put their efforts tovvard achieving the goal of self-aggrandizement, vvhereas the positive charis matic leaders develop self-discipline to endure the personal cost or risk of benefiting others. Finally, negative charismatic leaders use the power of their position or office, rewards and sanctions under their control, and various impression management techniques to get followers to perform required behavior? and to demonstrate desired commitment and loyalty. They use control strategies so!ely to elicit follower compliance. Followers are treated as providers of knowledge, abilities, skills, and effort that enable the leaders to accomplish their own objectives. Positive charismatic leaders, on the other hand, use empowerment instead of control strategies to bring about changes in the followers ore beliefs and values as they move the organization toward its goals. In addition, positive charismatic leaders use their personal expertise and examples of personal self-discipline primarily to transform followers beliefs and values into those consistent with the vision, rather than to elicit followers* overt compliance behavior. The use of such empowerment strategies is morally defensible because it achieves two desirable objectives. First, followers internalize the beliefs and values inherent in the vision formulated by the leader. Second, followers feel more empowered, which enhances their self-efficacy beliefs; as a result, they feel more competent to handle tasks required for the realization of the vision.

The Sources ofthe Shadow

At the heart of the negative form or the shadow side of charismatic leadership are two fundamental processesfollower dependence in the form of transfer-

216

REMAININ(i < I!Al iI'NUI.S

ence dynamics and the leaders own poicnhul foi mm usisni I )ependence stems in large part from a strong identification with the Icadn (Congcr, 1989a). The leaders qualities of strategic vision, dynamism, mspnation, and unconventionality are highly attractive to followers. This cxtraordmary ligure ts in cssence a model to be emulated. Followers want certain of the Icadci s c|uali(ics and values to ensure their own growth, success, and powcr vviihm Ihc organ i/at ion. In addition, the leaders abilities become the yardstick against which followers measure their own performance. Representative commcnts from the subordinates of charismatic leaders capture this dynamic (Congcr, 1989a): You want to be like your leaderits hero worship. When you look at our boss, you ask yourself: Now why didn't I do that with such flamboyancc? We worship him because of the way that he did the common in an uncommon manner. We want to be able to do thatits Creative. I want to be like my idol so I can do it on my own. You have a basic need to leam from him. I wanted to leam. I wanted to be a good charismatic leader myself. (p. 129) Don is like a role model. You want to have that energy, both the physical and the intellectual. You want to have that tremendous insightbam, just to see what he sees and have the ability to carry it out. Ive grown tremendously. Hes a teacher. You see what he has done, and you want to do it. You want to have the same impact. (p. 129)

What is unique about charismatic leadership in contrast to other leadership forms is the intensity of this identification and dependence. Drawing on concepts from psychoanalytic theory, we can best explain its depth by a process called transference. As Kets de Vries (1988) has shown, the leader in essence becomes a substitute parent of sorts. In our early years, we see our parents as all-powerful and perfeet. Later, in adulthood, a strong wish still lingersoften unconsciouslyto recapture this childhood state through a relationship with someone seen as omnipotent. Leaders, in their positions of authority, naturally activate this state. For followers, there is a hope or fantasy that somehow certain of the admired persons qualities will be acquired by association. eing in a relation ship with someone who is admired also reaffirms followers sense of importance, existence, and self-esteem. The interview comments of a subordinate of a highly manipulative charismatic leader capture this dynamic:
I felt that he could make success for me. By cultivating my relationship with him, I would be raised to a higher level of success. I was looking for help and thought he could bring something for me in terms of position and challenge. He may have

The Shadow Side of Charisma

217

been a con artist but thats not what I felt at the beginning. He liked me and was interested in me. It was a flattering kind of attention. One of his best features was that he gave you undivided attention. Since he was so powerful, its flattering to have him give full attention to you. He would ask for my opinion. He made me feel important by accepting what I had to say. I felt like I had an impact.

This affirmation of self and resulting dependence can either then be exploited by the charismatic leader solely for his or her own personal aims or serve as a vehicle for constructive mentoring for followers own growth. These differing outcomes provide a critical distinction between negative and positive forms of charismatic leadership. It is important to note that the degree of identification and the leader qualities with which followers identify are likely to vary depending on the social distance between the leader and particular followers. Preliminary research by Shamir (1995) shows that identification may be more intense with close leaders. Closeness also may be related to greater emulation of the leaders traits. On the leaders side, narcissism explains many of the shadow side problems of charisma. As House and Howell (1992) point out, narcissism is highly correlated with certain attributes of charismatic leaders. Narcissism as adisorder was advanced largely by the work of Heinz Kohut (see Kohut, 1971). As Maddi (1980) explained, Kohut argued that human beings have an essential need to enhance and order functioning through the experience of the self. When the self has developed well, it is a consciously appreciated sense of who and what one is that lends meaning and direction to behavior (p. 53). As children, we have two needs related to this experiencethe need to be mirrored and the need to idealize. Mirroring refers to a childs desire to have his or her expressions and actions be recognized and admired. Idealizing has to do with the need to identify with others who are more capable than ourselves. When parents fail to address or provide for these twin needs, the child will grow to feel inadequate (the lack of mirroring) and aimless (the lack of idealizing). The idealizing dynamic, of course, describes our discussion about followers needs to associate with the charismatic leader. The mirroring dynamic, on the other hand, relates to the narcissism of the leader, which is a love of self-display or the desire to get attention from others. Although this inclination is universal, leaders are more likely to experience exaggerated or extreme states of it. Kets de Vries (1988) describes the typical course:
It is very hard to imagine, unless one has the experience, what it means to be the object of excessive admiration by followers.. .. Some leaders, in being exposed

218

REMA1NING CHALLENGES

to a great deal of attention, eventually may find it hard to maintain a firm grasp on reality and thus distinguish fact from fantasy. Too much admiration can have dire consequences for the leaders mind: He or she eventually may believe it ali to be truethat he or she really is as perfect, as intelligent, as powerful as others think is the caseand act accordingly. Moreover, this belief may be intensifled by the fact that leaders have something going for them that ordinary mortals dont have: They frequently have the power to turn some of their fantasies into reality. If this happens, we may see the beginning of a self-propelled cycle of grandiosity. (p. H5) Narcissism can lead charismatic leaders to overestimate their capabilities and underestimate the role of critical skills, resources, and changing marketplaces. For example, they may fail to see shortcomings in their visions, to accept responsibility for bad decisions, to realize the need for managerial talent, and to develop adequate successors. Their needs for adoration and attention (or mirror ing) can lead them to deny flaws or problems with their visions, manipulate followers, and exaggerate their own capabilities. In addition, we know from empirical research employing the widely used Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Raskin & Hali, 1979) that narcissism in general is correlated with the need for power (Carroll, 1987); exhibitionism and aggression (Emmons, 1984); tendencies to be autocratic, aggressive, and sadistic (Raskin & Terry, 1988); a lack of empathy (Watson, Grisham, Trotter, & Biderman, 1984); and Machiavellianism (Biscardi & Schill, 1985). Moreover, individuals who are highly narcissistic often are blind to their own dysfunctional characteristics, denying or repressing them (Emmons, 1984; Raskin & Novacek, 1989). Exhibits 7.1-7.3 identify a range of the common problems found with dysfunctional charismatic leadership. In this chapter, we will narrow our attention to four of the more major categories of problems. These include (1) the leaders goals and visions, (2) their relations with subordinates, (3) their skill sets, and (4) their ability to find and develop successors. We will examine each to discover its darker side.

FLAWS IN THE CHARISMATIC LEADERS VISION

The very goals of the charismatic leader can produce problems if they reflect highly self-serving aims or are based on poor assessments of marketplace and organizational realities that blind the leader to barriers or resources. Three of the most common problems related to the leaders vision are (1) goals that are

The Shadow Side of Charisma

219

EXHIBIT 7.1 The Sources of Flawed Vision

The vision reflects the interna! needs of the leader rather than those of the market or constituents The resources (e.g., financial, technological, human resource, political) needed to achieve vision are seriously miscalculated An unrealistic assessment or distorted perception of market and constituent needs holds sway A failure to recognize environmental changes prevents redirection of the vision
SOURCE: Adapted from Conger (1990, p. 45).

largely self-serving, (2) inadequate estimates of resources and political support, and (3) unrealistic assessments of the larger environment.

Visions That Reflect the Self-Serving Needs of the Leader

In earlier publications (Conger, 1989a, 1990), we have described how the pioneering products and services of charismatic leaders can essentially become EXHIBIT 7.2 Potential Liabilities in the Charismatic Leader's Communications and Impression Management Skills
Exaggerated self-descriptions of expertise, foresight, and commitment Exaggerated claims for the vision's outcomes A technique of fulfilling positive stereotypes and images of the leader's uniqueness to manipulate audiences A habit of gaining commitment by restricting negative information and maximizing positive information Use of positive anecdotes to distract attention away from negative statistical information concerning performance outcomes Creation of an illusion of control through affirming information and attributing negative outcomes to external causes
SOURCE: Adapted from Conger (1990, p. 50).