Personality and charismatic leadership

PERSONALITY AND CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP

Robert J. House* The Wharton School

University of Pennsylvania

Jane M. Howell University of Western Ontario

In this paper we review prior theory and empirical evidence relevant to the personality characteristics that differentiate charismatic leaders from noncharismatic leaders. We conclude from this review that charismatic leaders in present day complex organizations fit the stereotypical image of supportive, sensitive, nurturing, and considerate leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi or Nelson Mandela, rather than the traditional stereotype of aggressive, demanding, dominant and critical leaders such as Jim Jones or Field Marshall George Montgomery. We then present a review of research relevant to four traits that theoretically differentiate personalized (self-aggrandizing, non-egalitarian, and exploitive) charismatic leaders from socialized (collectively oriented, egalitarian, and nonexploitive) charismatic leaders. We conclude that the personality traits of the need for power, power inhibition, Machiavellianism, authoritarianism, narcissism, self esteem and locus of control are traits that are likely to differentiate personalized from socialized charismatic leaders.

Over the last 15 years a substantial body of theory and empirical evidence has been accumulated concerning exceptional leasders who have extraordinary effects on their followers and eventually on social systems. Such leadership-alternatively called charismatic (House, 1977; Weber, 1947), visionary (Sashkin, 1988), transformational (Avolio & Bass, 1988; Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978), and inspirational (Yukl & Van Fleet, 1982)-is claimed to influence followers in ways that are quantitatively greater and qualitatively different than the follower effects specified in past leadership theories. We refer to this new genre of leadership theories as charismatic because charisma is a central concept in all of them, either explicitly or implicitly.

*Direct all correspondence to: Robert J. House, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadephia, PA 19104-6370.

Leadership Quarterly, 3(2), 81-108. Copyright @ 1992 by JAI Press Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1048-9843

a2 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 3 No. 2 1992

According to charismatic leadership theory, such leaders transform the needs, values, preferences, desires and aspirations of followers from self-interests to collective interests. Further, they cause followers to become highly committed to the leaders mission, to make significant personal sacrifices in the interest of the mission, and to perform above and beyond the call of duty. Bennis and Nanus (1985) and Tichy and Devanna (1986) argue that such leaders have a transforming effect on the organizations that they lead as well as on their followers.

ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRADITIONAL LEADERSHIP THEORIES AND CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP THEORIES

In contrast to earlier leadership theories, which concern the effects of leaders on follower cognitions and task-related behavior, charismatic theories take as their dependent variables followers emotional attachment to the leader; followers emotional and motivational arousal; enhancement of followers valences with respect to the mission articulated by the leader; followers self-esteem, trust, and confidence in the leader; followers values; and followers intrinsic motivation.

The leader behavior specified by charismatic theories also differs from traditional leadership theories. The earlier leadership theories describe leader behavior in terms of leader-follower exchange relationships (Graen & Cashman, 1975; Hollander, 1964) providing direction and support (Evans, 1970; House, 1971) and reinforcement behaviors (Ashour & Johns, 1983; Podsakoff, Todor, & Skov, 1982). In contrast, charismatic leadership theory emphasizes symbolic leader behavior, visionary and inspirational ability, nonverbal communication, appeal to ideological values, intellectual stimulation of followers by the leader, and leader expectations for follower self-sacrifice and for performance beyond expectations. Such leadership is seen as giving meaning to work by infusing work and organizations with moral purpose and commitment rather than by affecting the cognitions or the task environment of followers, or by offering material incentives and the threat of punishment.

As of our last count, there have been at least 25 studies of this new genre of leadership theory. These studies have been conducted using a wide variety of methods including laboratory experimentation, participant observation, cross-sectional and longitudinal survey research in natural settings, case studies, qualitative interpretative analysis, rigorous content analysis of interviews, observation in a management game, and analysis of archival data. These studies have also been based on a wide variety of samples including U.S. presidents, university students, project champions, chief executive officers, military combat and noncombat squad leaders, naval and airforce cadet squadron leaders, and middle and lower level managers in the United States. In addition, middle managers in India, school principals in Singapore, and managers of supermarkets in Holland have also been studied (see House, Spangler, and Woycke [ I99 11 for a review of these studies).

Space limitations prevent a detailed review of the methodology and the specific findings of each of these studies. However, collectively the findings indicate that charismatic behaviors produce the theoretical charismatic effects on followers specified above as dependent variables, receive higher performance ratings, have more satisfied and more highly motivated followers, and are viewed as more effective leaders by their superiors and followers than others in positions of leadership. Further, the effect size

Personality and Charismatic Leadership 83

of charismatic leader behavior on follower satisfaction and performance is consistently higher than prior field study findings concerning other leader behavior, generally ranging well below .Ol probability of error due to chance, with correlations frequently ranging in the neighborhood of SO or better, even when common-method and common- source bias is controlled.

According to House (1977) and Shamir, House, and Arthur (1992), the charismatic behaviors that theoretically result in these effects are: (1) articulating an ideological vision-a vision that specifies a better future state in terms of such values as human rights, peace, freedom, order, equality, and attainment of status and privileges that are claimed to be the moral right of followers; (2) referring to distal rather than proximate goals; (3) communicating messages that contain frequent reference to values and moral justifications, to the collective and to collective identity, and to followers worth and efficacy as individuals and as a collective; (3) behaviorally role modeling the values implied in the vision by personal example; (4) expressing high performance expectations of followers; (5) communicating a high degree of confidence in followers ability to meet such expectations; and (6) demonstrating behaviors that selectively arouse unconscious achievement, power, and affiliative motives of followers when these motives are specifically relevant to the attainment of the vision. (See House and Shamir 119921 for a discussion of charismatic leaders motive arousing behaviors.)

Other authors have suggested additional charismatic behaviors. Weber (1947) argued that charismatic leaders offer radical solutions to major social problems. Bass (1985) suggested that charismatic leaders intellectually stimulate their followers and are sensitive to follower needs and considerate of followers. Conger and Kanungo (1987) and Sashkin (1988) argued that charismatic leaders take extraordinary risks in pursuit of their vision. With the exception of number six above, which has not been investigated, all of the behaviors have been shown to differentiate charismatic leaders from noncharismatic leaders and to have a positive effect on leader and follower effectiveness and follower motivation and satisfaction.

THE PROBLEM

Despite the increased attention being focused on charismatic leadership in the academic literature, to date no scholarly consensus has emerged on the precise application of the concept of charisma (Howell & House, 1992). The term charismatic has been applied to very diverse leaders emerging in political arenas (Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Fidel Castro, Franklin Delano Roosevelt), in religious movements (Jesus Christ, Jim Jones), in social movement organizations (Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X), and in business organizations (Lee Iacocca, Steven Jobs, Ross Johnson, Mary Kay Ash). Clearly, charisma is a broadly applied term that does not distinguish between good or moral and evil or immoral leadership. The challenge facing leadership scholars, therefore, is to distinguish between different types of charismatic leaders using criteria that are free of moral evaluation such as observable and verifiable personality characteristics of the leaders.

There has been some theoretical speculation and empirical research concerning the personality characteristics which differentiate charismatic leaders (CLs) from noncharismatic leaders (NCLs) (House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1991; Howell & Higgins,

84 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 3 No. 2 1992

1990a; Ross & Offerman, 1991; Roush & Atwater, 1992; Smith, 1982). Further, several authors have advanced speculations suggesting personality traits and behaviors that theoretically differentiate personalized (self-aggrandizing, exploitive, and non- egalitarian) leaders from socialized (collectively motivated, nonexploitive, and egalitarian) leaders (Bass, 1988; Hogan, Raskin, & Fazzini, 1990; Howell, 1988; Howell & Avolio, 1992; Howell & House, 1992; Musser, 1988). However, the theory and research concerning CL personality characteristics is both quite limited and fragmentary.

The purpose of this paper is to summarize the evidence concerning CL personality characteristics and to advance a theoretical extension of CL theory. The theoretical extension presented here consists of identification of a set of personality characteristics that theoretically differentiate personalized from socialized CLs. Before presenting our review of the evidence concerning CL personality, we first define the terms personalized and socialized charisma.

Defining Socialized and Personalized CL

Following McClelland (1975), we define socialized charismatic leadership as leadership which (a) is based on egalitarian behavior, (b) serves collective interests and is not driven by the self-interest of the leader and (c) develops and empowers others. McClelland and his colleagues (1972) reported a study which suggests that socialized leaders tend to be altruistic, to work through legitimate established channels and systems of authority when such systems exist, and to be self-controlled and follower-oriented rather than narcissistic.

Also, following McClelland (1975), we define personalized charismatic leadership as leadership which (a) is based on personal dominance and authoritarian behavior, (b) serves the self-interest of the leader and is self-aggrandizing and (c) is exploitive of others (McClelland, 1975). Theoretically personalized leaders rely on personal approval or rejection of followers to induce others to comply with their wishes. They show disregard for the rights and feelings of others and they tend to be narcissistic, impetuous, and impulsively aggressive (Howe11 & House, 1992). (See Howell and House [19921 for a more detailed, rich description of personalized and socialized leadership.)

While we delineate two pure types of charismatic leadership, it is recognized that these leadership types are not mutually exclusive. It is possible that a leader will, at times, simultaneously display behavior that reflects some aspects of both personalized and socialized charismatic tendencies. Although such mixed forms of charisma undoubtedly occur, the extreme or pure types of charisma are analyzed here for purposes of differentiating them.

We now turn to our discussion of the personality traits of CLs, followed by a description of the personality characteristics that theoretically differentiate personalized from socialized CLs.

PERSONALITY TRAITS OF CLs

In this section we review early research evidence on leader personality traits, summarize empirical findings relevant to traits that characterize CLs, and then contrast CL traits with leader personality traits in general. Prior to embarking on this review, we clarify


the terms dominance and need for power which appear in our discussion of

leadership traits.

Clarification of Terms

In the discussion that follows the constructs dominance and need for power are defined. Unfortunately, the dominance scale of the California Personality Inventory (CPI) and the need referred to by McClelland as the need for power (or n-pow, or the power motive), convey meanings to most people that are not consistent with what is measured by these two constructs, when operationalized. The CPI dominance scale is a measure of prosocial assertiveness and is not a measure of the need to dominate or to control others, or to engage in authoritarian behavior. As pointed out by House and Baetz (1979, p. 351), the CPI dominance scale measures prosocial assertiveness and ascendence in social settings and not bossy, pushy, or domineering behavior. Individuals who score high on the CPI Dominance scale tend to take initiative in social settings, to introduce people to each other, and to be socially engaging by being humorous, introducing topics of discussion, and stimulating social interaction. Such individuals are socially ascendent in that they are clearly noticeable, and their behavior is usually welcomed.

The need for power is operationally a measure of nonconscious motivation to have an impact on others or ones environment. According to McClelland and his associates (1972), the manner in which this need is satisfied, whether prosocial or antisocial, depends on whether the individual also has a nonconscious need to be responsible for his or her actions and for the consequences of such actions on others (Winter, 1991).

The labels dominance and need for power have the negative connotation of socially undesirable, domineering, and controlling behavior. Accordingly, these labels have misled the readers of the literature concerning both motivation and leadership. It would be much more accurate to relabel the CPI dominance scale as prosocial assertiveness and the need for power as need for social influence.

Early Research on leader Personality Traits

Early research concerning leader personality traits identified a number of traits that frequently, but not always, differentiated emergent from non-emergent leaders, and effective from ineffective leaders (Mann, 1959; Stogdill, 1948). One of the traits most frequently found by Stogdill to be predictive of leader behavior or leader effectiveness is dominance (often measured by the CPI dominance scale). Other traits consistently predictive of leader behavior are intelligence, self-confidence, activity or energy, and task-relevant knowledge. Stodgill (1948) pointed out that traits are likely to be better predictors of leader behavior and effectiveness if treated as variables that interact with selected contextual variables to predict leader behavior or leader effectiveness. Contrary to much folklore in the social sciences literature, Stogdill did not call for a moratorium on trait research, nor did he assert that traits are not predictive of leader behavior or effectiveness.

House and Baetz (1979) pointed out that Stogdills (1948) summary is somewhat misleading in that it included studies based on children and adolescent leaders. When studies based on children or adolescent leaders were excluded from Stogdills analysis,


the results showed a set of traits that had a consistent set of effects on follower attributions of leadership, leadership emergence or leadership performance. In fact, almost all of the negative or conflicting findings reviewed by Stogdill are based on studies of children or adolescent leaders of youthful gangs, groups, or athletic teams. Further, many of the studies reported by Stogdill(l948) and Mann (1959) had respectable effect sizes ranging between .40 to .50.

Recent studies have confirmed the importance of trait-based variance in leadership (Kenny & Zaccaro, 1983; Lord, De Vader, & Alliger, 1986; Zaccaro, Foti, & Kenny, 1991). For example, in a reanalysis of a leadership trait study conducted by Barnlund (1962) Kenny and Zaccaro (1983) reported that between 49% and 82% of leadership variance could be attributed to a stable characteristic of the emergent leader. They speculated that this characteristic may involve leader social sensitivity and behavioral flexibility. This speculation was supported in a subsequent investigation of the relationship between perceived leader status across different group situations and interpersonal sensitivity conducted by Zaccaro, Foti, and Kenny (199 1). They found that 59% of the variance in leadership emergence was trait-based and suggested that social perceptiveness and behavioral flexibility were the relevant leadership traits.

Lord, De Vader, and Alliger (1986) conducted a meta-analysis of 35 studies reported by Mann (1959) and others dealing with six traits that were associated with follower attributions of leadership. Traits that Lord and his associates found to be significantly associated with follower perceptions of leadership were intelligence, dominance, and masculinity-femininity. Adjustment was also very close to being statistically significant. Thus, Lord and his colleagues (1986) concluded that personality traits are associated with leadership perceptions to a higher degree and more consistently than the popular literature indicates (p. 407).

House and Baetz (1979) argued that a select set of traits are likely to differentiate leaders from nonleaders, and effective leaders from ineffective leaders in most circumstances because:

First, leadership always takes place with respect to others. Therefore, social skills are likely always to be needed if attempted influence acts are to be viewed as acceptable to others. Such skills as speech fluency and such traits as personal integrity, cooperativeness, and sociability are prime candidates for the status of leadership traits.

Second, leadership requires a predisposition to be influential. Therefore such traits as dominance or ascendance, need for influence.. and need for power... are also hypothesized to be associated with leadership.

Third, leadership most frequently takes place with respect to specific task objectives or organizational goals. Consequently, such traits as need for achievement, initiative, tendency to assume personal responsibility for outcomes, desire to excel, energy, and task-relevant ability are also hypothesized to be associated with leadership (p. 353).

Traits Specifically Characteristic of Cls

There is some theory and evidence with respect to the psychological traits that differentiate CLs from NCLs. Weber (1947) argued that CLs have a special gift which sets them apart from ordinary individuals. According to Weber, by virtue of this special gift, which appears from his writings to be a specific and unique personality syndrome,


CLs are able to command love, respect, awe, devotion, voluntary compliance, and substantial personal sacrifices from followers in pursuit of their vision and mission. Weber did not, however, specify the nature of this gift, the personality traits of CLs, or the behaviors that set them apart from ordinary people.

Borgatta, Couch, and Bales (1954) argued that some leaders are great and that by virtue of their greatness they are able to lead followers to larger achievements than others who are not great. This argument is referred to the literature as the Great Man Theory of Leadership. Borgattaet al. (1954) provided supportive evidence for the Great Man Theory. These authors selected 11 Great Men out of 126 who scored high on three attributes: task ability (leadership ratings received on a prior task and IQ score), individual assertiveness (ratings received on a prior task), and social acceptability (sociometric choice on a prior task). These Great Men were each assigned to four task groups. Two new co-participants were involved in each task. The groups led by Great Men were compared to groups led by men who were not high on all three of the above dimensions. Groups led by Great Men had higher rates of giving suggestions and arriving at agreements, lower tension, and higher positive social and emotional behavior in comparison to groups not led by Great Men. The authors concluded . . .thus, it may be said that great men tend to make great groups in the sense that both major factors of group performance-productivity and satisfaction of the members-are increased (p. 759). Thus, there is evidence that great or possibly charismatic leaders are distinguished from others in terms of personality traits and behaviors.

Houses (1977) theory of charismatic leadership includes a description of personality characteristics that theoretically differentiate CLs from NCLs. According to Houses theory, CLs have high self-confidence, high verbal ability, high need for influence or power, and exceptionally strong convictions in the moral correctness of their beliefs. Theoretically CLs need to have a very high degree of self-confidence and moral conviction because their mission is usually unconventional and likely to be resisted from those who have a stake in preserving the status quo. Consequently, CLs need to be exceptionally determined and to persist in the face of high risks and major obstacles. Further, the display of confidence and determination inspires and thus motivates and empowers followers. According to House (1977), nonverbal expressiveness and the ability to be verbally articulate are necessary for CLs to communicate their vision and mission in a compelling way to followers. Finally, House argues that CLs need to derive satisfaction from the process of leading others and being influential. Thus they need to have a high need for influence if they are to receive intrinsic satisfaction from leading and to be sustained in the face of risks, obstacles and hardship.

Support for the general proposition that personality traits differentiate CLs from NCLs has been reported in several field studies. Smith (1982) administered the Ghiselli self-assurance scale and the CPI dominance scale to 30 reputed effective CLs and 30 reputed effective NCLs. He also obtained follower ratings of the leaders personal dynamism using a scale that reflects leaders enthusiasm, energy, and involvement with respect to their work. He found the CLs to be more self-assured and dynamic than the NCLs. However the scores of the two groups on the dominance scale were not significantly different. Based on interviews with the leaders, Smith further reported that the CLs were more developmentally oriented towards their followers than the NCLs.


That is, CLs showed more concern for the professional growth of their followers and reported that they engaged in more developmental efforts such as coaching, role modeling by personal example, and providing guidance and developmental experiences.

Based on a rigorous content analysis of interview transcripts of a matched sample of 25 champions and 25 nonchampions of technological innovations, Howell and Higgins (1990a, 1990b) found that champions reported that they engaged in the following leader behaviors significantly more than nonchampions: articulating a compelling vision of the innovations potential for the organization, expressing confidence in others to participate effectively in the initiative, displaying unconventional, innovative actions to achieve goals, showing self-confidence, and assessing environmental resources and constraints for bringing about change. Champions also initiated significantly more influence attempts than nonchampions. Thus champions can be considered informal charismatic leaders. The personality characteristics that differentiated champions from nonchampions were higher risk taking, cognitive achievement orientation and innovativeness.

Ross and Offerman (1990) tested the hypothesis that since CLs change organizational cultures, goals, ideology, and follower norms, such leaders are likely to have a higher need for change and to be more flexible than NCLs. These investigators also tested a hypothesis suggested by an exploratory study conducted previously by Clover (1988). Ross and Offerman (1990) report that:

Clover found that the transformational Icharismatic] leaders scored significantly higher in measures of feminine attributes, nurturance and pragmatism than did the nontransformational leaders. The transformational leaders also scored significantly lower on measures of masculine attributes, dominance, aggression, and criticalness. Clover concluded that his group of transformational leaders was more flexible, more compassionate, more insightful, more pragmatic, and less forceful and tough than their nontransformational counterparts (p. 4).

Ross and Offerman (1990) note that these results are obviously at odds with the stereotypical military leader (p. 4). Following Clover (1988), they postulated that CLs are likely to be higher on feminine attributes, nurturance, and pragmatism than NCLs.

The subjects of the Ross and Offerman study were 40 U.S. Air Force Academy commis- sioned officers. The officers were in their mid-careers and each was in charge of a squadron of 110 cadets. The leader behavior of these officers was assessed on the basis of ratings provided by themselves and three closely associated subordinates using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass, 1985). Ross and Offerman also administered several scales of the Gough and Heilbrun (1975) adjective checklist to the officers.

The correlations between the cadets ratings of officer CL behavior and the assessed personality traits are presented in Table 1. From this table it can be seen that several leader traits are correlated with ratings of charismatic behavior. The most intriguing aspect of these findings is that charisma is positively related to the personality traits of feminism and nurturance and negatively correlated with masculinity, dominance, aggression and criticalness. These findings are not only at odds with prior findings concerning conventional leaders reviewed above, but also somewhat counterintuitive in that the stereotype of charismatic leaders, especially in the military, suggests that such leaders would be bold, assertive, and forceful.


Table 1 Correlations of Personality Measures and Charismatic Leadership

(The Ross and Offerman Study)

Measure ACL Scale(s) Correlations

Need for change Self-confidence Dominance Feminine attributes Pragmatism Nurturance Masculine attributes Criticalness Aggression

Need for change and Creative personality Self-confidence and Personal adjustment Dominance Feminine A-3 Nurturance and Nurturing parent Masculine Critical parent Aggression

.34*

.63***

.I5

.54***

.69*** ,61+**

-.17 -.49*** -.47***

* p < .05

** p < .Ol

*** I, < ,001

There are two possible explanations for these counterintuitive findings. First, Bass (1985) and Sashkin (1988) argue that charismatic leaders are highly considerate of, and sensitive to, the needs of their followers. The above findings are consistent with this argument. Second, the Path Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness (House, 1971) predicts that supportive leadership is most satisfying to followers under conditions of dissatisfying jobs, stress, or boredom. Accordingly, leaders who are more feminine and nurturant and less masculine, dominant, critical, and aggressive would be predicted from this theory to produce more follower satisfaction under highly demanding and structured conditions such as those found in the Air Force Academy. We return to a discussion of this issue later.

Roush and Atwater (1992) studied the personality characteristics of 90 midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy who had been assigned as squad leaders for incoming Naval Academy students. The midshipmen had completed 2 or 3 years at the Academy. Their task was to help incoming freshmen in the transition from civilian to military life; to impart to them a modicum of military skills, knowledge and attitudes; and to prepare them for integration into the Brigade of Midshipmen.

The midshipmen completed the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI) which permits classification of respondents into personality types according to whether they prefer extroversion or introversion, sensing or intuition, thinking or feeling, and judging or perception, as their ways of behaving, taking in information, making decisions, and making judgments. The leader behavior of midshipmen was assessed by responses from 1,235 freshmen and self-reports from the 90 midshipmen using a modified version of Basss (1985) MLQ. Freshmen also completed a satisfaction questionnaire and a scale that measured midshipmen effectiveness with respect to ability, meeting requirements of the command, representing the squad to higher authority, and meeting followers job-related needs.

Analyses were performed to assess the relationships between leaders MBTI preferences and the leadership and performance ratings provided by the followers. The results revealed that sensing as opposed to intuition types, and feeling as opposed to


thinking types were rated significantly higher on charismatic and inspirational leadership. Sensing types concentrate on concrete detail rather than abstract global considerations. Feeling types concentrate on affective responses of others rather than impersonal logical processes and cognitions.

Followers were more likely to report extra effort for leaders whom they rated as charismatic and inspirational. This finding is likely to reflect common method-common source bias since all data concerning the leaders behavior and follower effort in this analysis were based on follower responses in the same questionnaire. However, several studies not limited by such bias have also demonstrated similar results (Curphy, 1990; House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1991; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Smith, 1982). Accordingly, there is likely to be a grain of truth in the Roush and Atwater findings concerning the relationship between leader charisma and follower effort, despite the likely common method-common source bias.

Finally, House, Spangler, and Woycke (1991) tested a recent theory which integrates McClellands Leader Motive Profile Theory (LMP) with Houses Theory of Charismatic Leader Effectiveness. According to McClellands LMP Theory, effective leaders will both enjoy the process of exerting social influence (need for power) and feel constrained not to use power in an exploitive manner through coercion or manipulation (activity inhibition). As described earlier, Houses Theory of Charismatic Leadership postulates that CLs have a high need to influence others. House and his colleagues used Winters (1987) motive scores of all elected U.S. presidents from Washington to Carter by applying the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) coding procedure to presidential inaugural addresses. Winter and Stewart (1978) have demonstrated that this coding procedure is valid and predictive of presidential behavior. House et al. (1991) found that the need for power and activity inhibition were predictive of presidential charismatic leader behavior and of presidential effectiveness in the execution of their policies.

Conclusion: CL Personality

An interesting, and somewhat surprising, picture of the charismatic personality can be drawn from the research reviewed above. CLs are differentiated from NCLs by several personality traits including: cognitive achievement orientation; strong tendencies to be creative, innovative, visionary, and inspirational; high levels of work involvement, energy, and enthusiasm; a strong propensity to take risks; self-confidence; a high need for social influence coupled with a strong concern for the moral and nonexploitive use of power in a socially desirable manner; willingness to exercise influence but not to be dominant, tough, forceful, aggressive, or critical; strong inclinations to be confident in, and encouraging toward, followers and to show a developmental orientation towards followers; and tendencies to be nurturant, socially sensitive, and sensitive to and considerate of follower needs.

Collectively, these studies indicate that CLs in complex organizations do not fit the stereotype of a bold, forceful, assertive, and aggressive leader such as General George Patton and Ross Johnson. Rather the findings describe a leader who is sensitive to follower needs, nurturant and developmentally oriented such as Max DePree (1989).


Consistent with Basss (1985) argument, CLs appear to foster follower independence rather than subservience. Bass (1985) contends that transformational (or charismatic) leaders even encourage followers to think for themselves to the extent that they become willing to openly question the leaders directions when in disagreement with the leader. Through coaching, questioning, and role modeling, the leader stimulates followers to question the status quo, to consider creative ways to tackle and solve problems on their own, and to solve future problems unforeseen by the leader. By creating learning opportunities for their followers, tailoring these learning opportunities to their needs, and providing social support conducive to learning, CLs build followersself-confidence and self-reliance and foster their growth and independence in a collaborative way. Ultimately CLs create followers who are more capable of leading themselves.

We refer to the CL traits described above as socialized leadership because these traits are generally viewed by others as socially desirable. However, an important limitation of the empirical studies to date is that CL has been treated as a unidimensional phenomenon. Many recent social scientists (Graham, 1988; Hodgkinson, 1983; Hogan, Raskin, & Fazzini, 1990; Howell 1988; Howell & Avolio, 1992; Howell & House, 1992; Roberts & Bradley, 1988; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1992) as well as many earlier historians, playwrights, sociologists and political scientists have recognized that charisma has both a bright side and a dark side. Yet there is no solid empirical evidence to indicate that unprincipled CLs are characterized by identifiable personality characteristics. We now turn to speculative discussion of this issue.

PERSONALITY THEORY

Our theoretical perspective regarding the components of CL personality is an integration of the motivational theories of David McClelland (1985a, b) and Albert Bandura (1986).

We argue that individual behavior is a function of motives, personality traits, intentions, and situational variables. Motives are relatively stable dispositions that serve to stimulate, energize, direct, maintain, and terminate behavior. Motives consist of learned networks of associations between behavioral, physiological, affective, and cognitive responses to stimuli. Motives are primarily nonconscious in the sense that individuals are not usually aware of the specific stimuli that arouse their motives. Further, individuals may also not be aware of their behavioral tendencies and behavioral response to arousal stimuli. However, some individuals might be, to some extent, aware of their general behavioral tendencies and responses to stimuli. Thus motives need not be exclusively nonconscious.

Personality traits are strongly learned and relatively stable dispositions to behave in a coherent manner across situations and over time. Habits, values, generalized expectations, and dispositions to think in cognitively simple or cognitively complex ways are examples of personality traits. Specific personality traits that have relevance to this paper are values and individual efficacy expectations.

Habits are behavioral responses to stimuli that are so well learned that they do not require conscious attention to execute their performance. Values are strongly internalized evaluative judgements concerning the appropriateness and morality of specific behaviors or classes of behavior. Efficacy expectations are beliefs concerning whether the individual can effectively perform specific behaviors. Efficacy expectations


are a function of generalized self-esteem, internal locus of control orientation, habits that have been learned over time, ability to perform the specific behavior under consideration and individual perceptions of the degree to which situations offer an adequate opportunity to perform the specific behavior. Personality traits may be conscious, nonconscious, or a mixture of both.

Motives and personality traits are the result of social learning and inherited capacities to gain satisfaction from selected stimuli. These inherited capacities serve as proclivities toward self-selection into situations in which they can be satisfied. These proclivities also serve to focus attention and learning in such self-selected situations. There is substantial empirical support for this assertion. Space limitations prevent a review of the relevant literature. However, the reader is referred to Starr and McCartney (1983) for a theory that accounts for the genetic inheritance of such proclivities and Bouchard, Lykken, McGue, Segal, and Tellegen (1990) for a review of the literature concerning genetic inheritance of motives and personality traits.

Conscious intentions are cognitively formulated statements of the kinds of behavior in which one plans to engage in the future. Conscious intentions are a function of values and efficacy expectations. Motives, personality traits, and intentions interact with perceived situational variables to produce resultant behavior. Perceived situational variables are a function of objective situational variables and individual perceptions of the degree to which such variables facilitate or constrain behavior. Individual inclinations to perceive objective situational variables as constraining or facilitating are a function of individual traits such as generalized optimism and locus of control orientation.

Objective situational variables provide cues to act, guidance, constraints on, and reinforcement for specific behaviors. Strong situations mute behavioral expression of motives, traits and intentions. Strong situations are situations in which appropriate behavior is clearly signaled by cues, guidance, and rewards and inappropriate behavior is clearly signaled by constraints and punishment (Mischel, 1973). In addition to signaling appropriate and inappropriate behavior, situational variables also arouse motives for which the situational variables are salient. Individuals perceive situational variables and make judgements about the likelihood that behaviors will be encouraged and rewarded. Thus situational variables interact with motives and conscious intentions to stimulate, direct, and sustain behavior. The specific functional relationship among these variables and between these variables and resultant behavior awaits further theoretical development and empirical evidence. However, for the purpose of this paper, we believe it is sufficient to assume that motivation to engage in personalized or socialized CL behavior is a positive linear function of motives, personality traits, and intentions plus an interactive function of (a) motives and intentions and (b) situational variables.

A significant implication of the conscious-nonconscious distinction is that long-term prediction of global behavior patterns such as career choices, friendship ties, major social commitments, leadership or followership style, child rearing practices, and leisure time activities can be determined by nonconscious motives and personality traits in interaction with the number and strength of incentives associated with the global behavior in question. (See Spangler [1992] for a review of evidence concerning one nonconscious motive, the achievement motive, for example.) We recognize that such


behavior can be tempered by cognitive choice and constraint. However, we argue that cognitive self-regulation of behavior itself can be determined by nonconscious motives or traits associated with affect such as the power motive and the trait of narcissism (see studies by Isen, Means, Patrick, and Nowicki, 1982; Higgins, Klein, and Strauman, 1985; and Abramson and Martin, 1981; for theory and research relevant to the relationship between affect and cognition).

Another significant implication of the conscious-nonconscious distinction is that in contrast to conscious personality traits, nonconscious motives and traits are less amenable to cognitive control and thus will be less affected by an individuals awareness of situational variables in his or her environment. While the behavioral expression of nonconscious motives and personality traits may be constrained or aroused by situational forces, the behavioral expression of such motives and traits is less likely to be affected by cognitions alone.

Short-term behavior such as specific task behavior can be predicted from conscious intentions. Long-term behavior can be predicted from intentions when such intentions are translated into concrete and specific goals. Conscious intentions have their most powerful effect on both short- and long-term behavior when deliberately and consciously transformed into specific goals with concrete or quantitative indicators of attainment (Locke & Latham, 1990). Thus intentions to be successful when transformed into a goal such as to reach the level of vice presidency in firm X within Y years, will be more predictive of behavior and are much more likely to be translated into desired behavior than more general and abstract statements of intentions. Goals are not motives or personality traits, but rather the result of choices made by individuals. Goals may reflect either nonconscious motives or conscious values or both. Specific, concrete goals are powerful long-term predictors of behavior because they embody much more than conscious intentions. In the formation of such goals, one reflects on skills needed to attain the goals, ones weaknesses and specific developmental efforts that need to be taken, the environmental obstacles that need to be overcome, and the sources of support that one can call upon in the pursuit of the goals. Further, as a result of such deliberations, one is likely to subjectively estimate the probability of goal attainment and adjust ones aspiration level to be as realistic as possible.

Concrete and specific goals provide a benchmark against which one can use feedback to measure progress, direct ones attention to the kind of indicators to which one can attend to assess progress, and permit one to establish a schedule against which progress can be measured. Thus concrete, specific goals permit one to monitor progress toward goal attainment. Failure to meet scheduled progress directs attention to corrective action. The experience of progress in the pursuit of goals is intrinsically rewarding and the experience of lack of progress is frustrating and dissatisfying. Thus, when either nonconscious motives or conscious intentions are transformed into specific, concrete goals such goals have powerful short- and long-term motivational effects.

However, long-term patterns of behavior, not directed by specific goals, are determined predominantly by nonconscious motivation and personality traits. Since individuals are aware of conscious traits and values, and therefore their behavioral expression, conscious traits and values are at least somewhat amenable to cognitive control. We say somewhat because habituation, or strength of prior learning, may


be so strong that even though individuals may be aware of their behavioral inclinations, they may not be able to bring such inclinations under cognitive control, especially in highly stressful situations. Consider, for example, the difficulties individuals experience in extinguishing such behavior as heavy drinking, smoking, or losing ones temper, despite conscious intention to extinguish such behaviors.

According to the theory presented here, nonconscious and conscious processes influence each other through their independent impact on affect. Affect can drive and direct cognitive processes such as search behavior, use of feedback, level of goal choice, and memory. Both the experience of cognitions and the arousal of nonconscious motives can induce the experience of affect. For example, when an individual receives bad news, such as the loss of a loved one, he or she becomes depressed. If an individual is insulted, he or she is likely to become upset, frustrated, or angry. Once an individual is in a particular affective state such as depression or contentedness, the affective state influences cognitive processes. For example, depressed individuals are likely to interpret information negatively. Thus, while conscious and nonconscious processes may analytically be conceived of as independent systems, both influence an individuals experience of affect, which in turn influences both systems.

These assertions concerning motivation and behavior provide the theoretical framework for the remainder of this paper. We now turn to a discussion of the personality characteristics that are theoretical antecedents to the two pure types of CLs.

PERSONALITY ANTECEDENTS OF PERSONALIZED AND SOCIALIZED CL

In this section we briefly summarize evidence relevant to several personality traits that we believe theoretically differentiate personalized from socialized CLs. We selected these personality traits because they have been shown to be associated with CL behavior, or because they have been shown to be implicated in the exercise of power in a socialized or personalized manner. Thus these traits may be useful in predicting personalized or socialized CL.

The Need For Power

One motive relevant to the exercise of both personalized and socialized charismatic leadership is the need for power (also referred to as n-pow or the power motive). McClelland and his associates have conducted a substantial number of studies on the need for power, over 100 at our last count. These studies provide convincing evidence of both the construct validity and predictive validity of the n-pow motive measure. For example, it has been shown that after the power need has been aroused, there is a marked gain in norepinephrine excretion in the subjects urine and in subjects physiological activation (Steele, 1973, 1977). Further, the gain in norepinephrine is positively correlated (r = f .66, p < .05) with the amount of power imagery in stories written after the need for power has been aroused. McClelland (1985) reviewed a number of studies that show that arousal of n-pow is associated with increases in adrenalin, dopamine, and endorphins in ones blood stream.


Subjects with high n-pow react more sensitively to power-related stimuli than to neutral stimuli (Davidson et al., 1980; McClelland et al., 1979) recall more peak experiences that are described in power terms, and remember more power-related facts relative to neutral facts than do low or neutral n-pow subjects (McAdams, 1982). Individuals with high n-pow show more partiality toward ingratiating followers than individuals with low n-pow (Fodor & Farrow, 1979) and inhibit group discussion more than low n-pow individuals. As a consequence, in one experiment, the number of alternatives considered were fewer and the quality of decisions lower for groups led by high n-pow individuals (Fodor & Smith, 1982).

High n-pow individuals become more highly activated when supervising others than low n-pow individuals (Fodor, 1984). High power motivated males report that they have more arguments, play competitive sports more, have less stable interpersonal relations, favor more assertive foreign policies, experience more emotional problems, and are more impulsively aggressive than less power motivated males (McClelland, 1985a, b). Such individuals are more self-aggrandizing. The strive to be assertive and collect symbols of power and prestige such as expensive cars and electronic equipment. They surround themselves with lesser known people who can be dominated and they frequently call attention to themselves (Winter, 1973). Further, they describe their role in friendship episodes in terms of opportunities to be dominant and controlling (McAdams, Healy, & Krause, 1982). In comparison to low n-pow individuals, high n-pow individuals are more assertive, less cooperative, more deceitful, and more exploitive of others (Terhune, 1968a, b); evaluate others as more negative (Watson, 1974); and see themselves as more rebellious, resentful, sulky, cynical, and bitter (Gough & Heilbrun, 1975).

Thus the need for power appears to be a good candidate for use as an explanatory variable and a predictor of personalized CL, especially under conditions in which this need is aroused and behaviorally activated. There is also evidence that the need for power, in conjunction with other needs, may be implicated in socialized as well as personalized CL. We now turn to a discussion of empirical evidence which bears on this possibility.

The leadership Motive Pattern

In a discussion of leadership, McClelland (1985) argued that high n-pow, in combination with a low affiliative need and high activity inhibition, predisposes individuals to be effective leaders. McClelland referred to this need pattern as the Leadership Motive Pattern (LMP). Activity inhibition is defined as an unconscious motive to use social influence, or to satisfy the power need, in socially desirable ways, for the betterment of the collective rather than for personal self-interest. McClelland et al. (1972) found that mens expressions of n-pow in TAT stories varied qualitatively, depending on whether the individual was high or low in activity inhibition. Men low in activity inhibition had power thoughts much more focused on personal dominance or winning at someone elses expense. However, for men scoring high on activity inhibition, power imagery was more often stated in terms of doing good for others, for humanity, or for some worthy and presumably moral cause.


According to McClelland (1985), individuals who are high on n-pow and also high on activity inhibition should make more effective managers, especially if n-pow is greater than the need for affiliation. McClelland reasoned that n-pow is an appropriate motive for meeting the role demands of positions of influence such as those found in large complex organizations. He also argued that because the LMP includes a low affiliative need, this combination of needs allow an individual to remain socially distant from subordinates and, therefore, to be more objective with respect to resource allocation, delegation, and discipline. Individuals with a high affiliative need are assumed to manage on the basis of personal relationships and favoritism and to be unwilling to monitor or discipline subordinates. Further, McClelland argued that individuals with the LMP enjoy work involving the exercise of power because it enables them to be in control.

The LMP theory enjoys considerable empirical support. The combination of high n-pow, high activity inhibition, and low need for affiliation has been shown to be predictive of leader effectiveness and success in a number of studies including a cross- sectional study of middle managers (McClelland & Burnham, 1976) and longitudinal studies of entry-level managers (McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982) naval officers (Winter, 1987) and U.S. presidents (House et al., 1991). This combination of needs has also been shown to be predictive of socially responsible behavior of adults over a IO-year period (Winter, McClelland, & Stewart, 1982).

Of particular interest with respect to the prediction of personalized versus socialized leadership, is the role of activity inhibition in regulating and constraining the socially undesirable effects manifested by high n-pow individuals. As the above studies show, activity inhibition in conjunction with the n-pow is indeed predictive of managerial success, charisma, and effectiveness in a number of studies. Further, this measure is also associated with expressions of altruistic intent, respect for institutionalized authority, self-discipline, and belief in a just world in TAT stories (McClelland et al., 1972), and with socially responsible behavior of adults. High n-pow individuals who are low on activity inhibition have strong tendencies for heavy drinking. However, high n-pow individuals who are also high on activity inhibition show no unusual inclination to consume alcohol (McClelland, 1985).

The above review suggests that individuals with a high need for power and low activity inhibition will exhibit personalized behavior as their dominant mode of leadership and that leaders with a high need for power and high activity inhibition will exhibit socialized behavior as their dominant mode of leadership.

There are three additional well developed and validated measures of individual traits to engage in exploitive use of power. These are the Machiavellianism scale (Christie & Geis, 1970), the Narcissism Personality Inventory (Raskin & Hall, 1979) and the Right Wing Authoritarianism Scale (Altemeyer, 1981). It is likely that these measures, in interaction with the need for power, or used independently, will be predictors of personalized and socialized CL. In the following three sections we briefly summarize the empirical research relevant to each of these traits.

Machiavellianism

Machiavellianism, as conceived by Christie and Geis (1970) refers to an individual disposition to maximize ones self-interest at the expense of others by use of


manipulation and deceit. Accordingly, individuals who score high on Machiavellianism, as measured by Mach IV or Mach V scales (Christie & Geis, 1970) are described as exhibiting the Cool Syndrome and individuals who score low on Machiavellianism are described as being a Soft Touch. The cool syndrome of the high Mach is characterized by resistance to social influence, orientation to task-related cognitions rather than to emotional or moral involvement with others, and a strong tendency to initiate and control interactions with others. In contrast, the soft touch syndrome of the low Maths is characterized by susceptibility to social influence, orientation to others that results in a tendency to be distracted by affective, nontask related interpersonal considerations, and acceptance of control and structure initiated by others.

Empirical research has generally supported the description of high Maths as possessing the cool syndrome (Christie & Geis, 1970; Drory & Gluskinos, 1980; Epstein, 1969; Geis, Krupat, & Berger, 1965; Harris, 1966; Hegarty & Sims, 1979; Huber & Neale, 1987; Oksenberg, 1968; Rim, 1966; Weinstein, Beckhouse, Blumstein, & Stein, 1968). The characteristic cool syndrome of the high Maths is exhibited under competitive conditions that (a) allow face-to-face interactions between high Maths and others, (b) allow latitude for improvisation of both content and timing of responses to the task and to other people, and (c) are likely to induce irrelevant affectin situations that permit considerations that can interfere with manipulative behavior and effective bargaining (Christie & Geis, 1970). Low Maths experience affective arousal in such situations while high Maths remain cool.

Machiavellianism might easily be interpreted as a highly power-oriented disposition. However, this is likely an erroneous interpretation of this trait. Rather, Machiavellianism is a strong tendency to be amoral in the pursuit of ones self-interest. Naturally, this may be reflected in the pursuit and exercise of power when power serves the self-interest of the individual involved.

Given that personalized CLs manipulate and dominate others for their own self- interest, it seems likely that they would exhibit Machiavellian behavior when it is in their interest to do so. In contrast, socialized CLs who exercise power in a nonexploitive manner for collective interests would theoretically be expected to exhibit a low level of Machiavellian behavior. These findings suggest that under competitive conditions that allow face-to-face interaction, latitude for improvisation, and arousal of irrelevant affect, Machiavellianism will be positively associated with personalized CL behavior.

Narcissism

There is a substantial amount of empirical evidence relevant to the narcissistic personality trait. The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) (Raskin & Hall, 1979) has been used rather widely, and almost all of the findings based on this self-report scale have been replicated using observation of subjects by others. The construction of the NPI was based on the following criteria: an inflated sense of self-importance and uniqueness; preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, status, prestige and superiority; expectations of special favors without reciprocation; seeking admiration and attention from others; interpersonal exploitiveness; lack of empathy; inability to tolerate criticism; indifference toward others; and relationships that


alternate between extremes of overidealization and devaluation, The NPI has been demonstrated to be a valid and reliable self-report inventory of narcissism (Emmons, 1981, 1984, 1987; Raskin, 1980; Raskin& Hall, 1979,1981; Raskin&Terry, 1988). Factor analysis of NPI responses of two large samples of college students produced four separate factors labelled: exploitivenessientitlement; leadership/ authority; superiority/ arrogance; and self-absorption/self-~miration (Emmons, 1984, 1987).

There are several reasons to believe that narcissism might be a personality characteristic of personalized CLs. First, narcissism is strongly correlated with several personality scales that measure individual self-confidence, freedom from depression, (Raskin, Novacek, & Hogan, 1991) self-perceptions of social adjustment and freedom from social anxiety (Emmons, 1984) capacity for status (Gough, 1988), and social assertiveness (Raskin & Terry, 1988). Since charismatic leaders are theoretically highly self-confident and confident in the moral righteousness of their beliefs (House, 1977) and have also been demonstrated empirically to be more self-confident (House et al., 1991; Howell & Higgins, 1990b; Smith, 1982), both logic and evidence converge to suggest that narcissism might be a characteristic of some charismatic leaders.

However, narcissism is also a personality syndrome that includes many dispositions and behavioral characteristics of personalized leadership. NPI scores have been found to be positively correlated with Machiavellianism (Biscardi & &hill, 1985), generalized anger and hostile responses (McCann & Biaggio, 1989), disinhibition, susceptibility to boredom, experience seeking (Emmons, 198 l), need for power as measured by the TAT (Carroll, 1987), exhibitionism, aggression, and extraversion (Emmons, 1984), competitiveness and tendencies to be managerial and autocratic, aggressive, and sadistic (Raskin & Terry, 1988). Further, the NPI has been found to be negatively associated with two dispositions that are generally positive and supportive of others: empathy (Watson, Grisham, Trotter, & Biderman, 1984) and intrinsic religious values which are indicative of transcending self-centered needs (Emmons, 1981). It is interesting to note that narcissistic persons repress or deny their more personally offensive characteristics (Emmons 1984; Raskin & Novacek, 1989).

Collectively, the narcissistic findings are quite frightening. They describe individuals who are capable of being extremely charming and manipulative and extremely cruel to others. Such individuals appear to be willing to use their charm to engage in cruel and punitive behavior whenever it is in their self-interest to do so. Further, narcissists appear to experience little self-doubt or psychological disturbance as a result of their behavior.

Personality psychologists do not consider narcissism a psychological disorder, except in the extreme, as the narcissists themselves experience little anxiety, guilt, or other forms of psychological disturbance. While narcissists very likely cause serious pain and disturbance in others, they are best characterized as carriers of psychological problems rather than individuals who experience such problems. These findings suggest that narcissistic leaders are very likely to engage in personalized CL behavior as their dominant mode of leading.

Authoritarianism

Altemeyer (1981) developed a theory of authoritarian personality and a scale referred to as Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA). Over a 15-year program of research,


Altemeyer has demonstrated that his measure of RWA meets the conventional requirements of construct validity and is predictive of attitudes and behaviors theoretically assumed to be associated with the authoritarian personality syndrome.

This syndrome is theoretically defined as a motivational syndrome consisting of the following three attitudinal clusters:

1. Authoritarian submission-a high degree of submission to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives.

2. Authoritarian aggression-a general aggressiveness that is perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities, directed against selective, usually lower status persons.

3. Conventionalism-a high degree of adherence to the social conventions that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities (Altemeyer, 1981, p. 2).

These attitudinal clusters refer to a tendency to respond in the same general way toward authority, lower status others, and established social conventions. Altemeyer found evidence of strong covariation among these three clusters based on factor analyses. He then analyzed the relationships between each of the three subscales and a number of criterion variables used to measure the degree to which subjects responses indicated authoritarian behavior. Persons who score high on the RWA scale were found to engage in a wide range of behaviors consistent with Altemeyers theory including tendencies to be ethnocentric and bigoted toward minorities, punitive toward lower status individuals, and accepting of illegal acts done by government officials to harass and intimidate their opponents. High RWAs compared to low RWAs administered higher levels of electrical shock to another in an experimental mock-learning situation as a punishment for having chosen the wrong answers; chose higher sentences to be imposed on gay counter-demonstrators as compared to anti-gay demonstrators; and were more intolerant of ambiguity and more aggressive. They also did not realize, recognize, or admit their aggressive tendencies and intolerance of ambiguity.

The above review suggests that CLs who are highly authoritarian exhibit personalized leader behavior as their dominant mode of leadership, and individuals who are nonauthoritarian exhibit socialized leader behavior as their dominant leadership mode.

Efficacy Expectations, Self-Confidence, and locus of Control

One of the individual antecedents to behavior is an individuals efficacy expectations. Individuals who are confident in the efficacy of their behavior are more likely to take action than those who are not (Bandura, 1986). There are two personality traits that affect efficacy expectations: individual self-esteem and locus of control. Self-esteem and locus of control are hypothesized to determine, in significant part, whether an individual will have confidence in his or her ability to induce others to comply. According to Subjective Expected Utility Theory (Kipnis, 1976; Tedeschi, Schlenker, & Lindskold, 1972), a leaders choice of influence tactics depends, in significant part, on the degree to which the leader expects others to comply. Accordingly, the greater the resistance expected, the more the leader will rely on harsh, coercive, or manipulative tactics. Thus,


if a follower is expected to comply readily, the leader will rely on mild suggestion and rational persuasion. If the follower is expected to resist such mild influence tactics, the leader will employ more forceful influence tactics such as offering strong rewards (or bribes), or making threats of punishment.

Confidence in being able to influence others is predictive of leaderschoice of influence tactics. Kipnis (1976), in his book The Power Holders, reviewed a number of studies that demonstrated that when leaders lack confidence in their ability to influence others, sanctions-whether positive or negative-are most likely to be invoked.

Experimental studies by Goodstadt and Kipnis (1970), Rotbart (1968), Michener and Burt (1974), and Kipnis and Cosentino (1969) demonstrated support for Subjective Expected Utility Theory. In a study of 103 managers, the correlation between the managers expectations of being able to improve employee performance and the managers endorsement of use of coercion was - .41. Thus the lower the expectation of successful influence, the more coercion was recommended. Managers who had low self-confidence also said that the odds were poor that they could personally correct ineffective performance. The correlation was .39 between ratings of self-confidence and ratings of expectations of successful influence. Further, Rasner (1966) analyzed the biographies and the personalities of totalitarian and democratic political leaders. Totalitarian leaders were more insecure in private life and lower in self-esteem.

Finally, Goodstadt and Hjelle (1973) administered Rotters locus of control measure to persons in a laboratory experiment. The locus of control scale assesses ones generalized belief that ones own behavior determines what happens to him or her, rather than chance, or other external forces, such as other individuals, rules, bureaucracies, nature and the like. The subjects were given access to a wide range of means of influencing another person. The range of means included the power to reward, to shift persons to new work environments, to persuade, to use expert power, and to punish. Those who saw themselves as weak and powerless, as evidenced by their scores on the locus of control scale, selected punishing means of influence far more frequently than persons who perceived themselves to be powerful. Persons who believed they were powerful attempted to produce change in the other through persuasion.

Kipnis (1976, p. 188) states that people who doubt their own competence as a source of influence may be more likely to see others as resisting when, in fact, such resistance may not exist at all. Kipnis notes that psychological studies have shown that in situations in which it is only possible to influence another by relying on personal powers of persuasion, individuals with low self-esteem and self-confidence do not attempt to influence others (Hochbaum, 1954, cited in Kipnis, 1976, p. 118).

Kipnis (1976, p. 119) concluded from his research and that which he reviewed: Thus, when a person feels of little worth, he or she will be strongly attracted to harsh means of influence, if they are available. Underneath this behavior is the belief that gentle means of influence will not work since no one respects me enough to do what I say if I only ask. He goes on to state that what is of interest in the Goodstadt and Hjelle research is the conclusion that, even if given a wide range of means for influencing other persons and thereby having their objective powerlessness reduced . . persons who have a history of experiencing lack of power will still choose destructive forms of influence.. ..Subjective odds of being able to influence others appear to shift to the difficult end of the scale as feelings of self-worth decrease (Kipnis, 1976, p. 120).


Collectively, these findings suggest that: (a) the more internal the beliefs and the higher the self-esteem of a leader, the higher the efficacy expectations of the leader with respect to his or her ability to induce compliance through supportive and rational influence tactics; (b) the more external the beliefs and the lower the self-esteem of the leader, the lower the efficacy expectations with respect to his or her ability to induce compliance through rational and supportive tactics; and (c) individuals with high efficacy expectations will choose rational and supportive influence methods and individuals with low efficacy expectations will choose manipulative and coercive influence tactics. Thus, socialized CLs will likely have internal beliefs and high self-esteem and personalized CLs will likely have external beliefs and low self-esteem.

IMPLICATIONS OF PERSONALIZED CLs IMPACT ON FOLLOWERS AND ORGANIZATIONS

Given the personality characteristics of personalized CLs specified above, several implications can be drawn about their relationship with, and impact on, followers as well as their consequences for organizations and society.

By force of their overwhelming persuasive powers and authority, personalized CLs may evoke feelings of obedience or loyal submission in followers. Graham (1988) calls this phenomenon habituated followership: followers embrace their subordinate status so completely that failure to comply with the leaders request is unthinkable. Thus, in contrast to socialized leaders, personalized leaders undermine the development of followers self-responsibility, self-initiative and self-control.

It is interesting to speculate on the psychological relationship that exists between personalized CLs and their followers. It appears that followers are initially attracted to such leaders based on the appeal of the leaders vision. Such visions usually imply a better state of existence for followers if they become committed to the leaders movement. Further, participation in the movement gives intrinsic meaning to the life of followers: something to live for, to be a part of, and to contribute to, in an intrinsically satisfying and meaningful way. (See Shamir, House and Arthur 119921, for a more detailed discussion of how charismatic leaders appeal to the self-concept and intrinsic motivation of followers.)

However, with time and close association with the personalized CL, many of the immediate followers may become suspicious of the leaders motives, but remain committed to the initial reason forjoining the charismatic movement. This psychological state of affairs results in lingering devotion to the leader together with suspicion and fear of the leaders disapproval and possibly fear of physical or psychological harm from the leader. Thus, some immediate followers may eventually defect from the movement. To prevent such defections, the leader then turns to the use of threat and punishment, personal disapproval, threat of social ostracization, and even threat of physical harm, if it is within the leaders means. While these notions are speculative, it appears that this cycle of events has occurred with respect to the followers of Benito Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, Jim Jones, and Fidel Castro.

What appears to be equally interesting, is that the remote followers of such leaders either do not become disenchanted with the leader and the movement, or do so long after the immediate followers become disenchanted. This is likely because the immediate

LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 3 No. 2 1992

followers have first-hand observation of the leader over a considerable period of time, while the remote followers have little direct contact with the leader.

The consequence of this scenario is that followers who are initially attracted to leaders on the basis of identification, devotion, and love eventually must be managed by the leader in extremely coercive ways such as threat of imprisonment, physical punishment, or execution. Thus, personalized CL, if left unbridled, can have severe detrimental, even disastrous, consequences for followers.

We further contend that when personalized CLs emerge into, or are placed in, positions of leadership within organizations there is grave danger that the power accompanying such positions will be used primarily for the self-aggrandizement of the leader, to the detriment of others. Kipnis (1976) has shown convincingly through laboratory experiments, management simulations, and field research, that there are strong forces that tempt those in power to see themselves as superior to others whom they lead and to deal with followers in harsh and even inhumane ways when the followers disagree with the leaders wishes. He refers to the process by which leaders adopt such attitudes and behaviors as the metamorphic effect of the possession of power.

Hodgkinson (1983) argues that since charisma may have either beneficial or malevolent effects, we need to first understand the charismatic phenomenon and beware of its consequences. What, then, can be done to harness the positive forces of charisma without destroying its potential for social gain? The answer appears to lie in the kind of preventative mechanisms that will serve to prevent followers from entering into relationships with leaders in which the followers are willing to engage in blind obedience, against their own moral values and judgement, to gain the approval of leaders.

To address the possibility of abuse of power by such individuals requires society-wide norms, laws, and institutional constraints such as checks and balances on the exercise of personalized power. Norms and laws that enforce democracy, openness or full disclosure of activities and their effects, and removal or control of such leaders are required. While such norms and laws are available in the United States and in most democratic societies, these are insufficient to completely prevent the emergence of such leaders and their consequences. Examples are plentiful: the anonymous leaders of the Ku Klux Klan; the founder and leader of est, Werner Erhard; the religious cult led by Jim Jones; and the abuse of power by numerous corporate and political executives. Since legislation is not completely adequate for the task, another source of prevention and remedy is awareness of the personalized charismatic phenomenon and preparation of members of the society to recognize and resist following the orders of personalized leaders in crimes of obedience.

CONCLUSION

The above review of empirical evidence rather clearly shows that there are personality traits that are very likely to be antecedents of charismatic leadership. There are important implications of these findings. First, CLs may be identified and selected on the basis of psychological assessment. Second, several personality traits are likely to be associated with, and predictive of, personalized and socialized CL. Third, leadership training, management development efforts, role modelling by leaders, and career counseling efforts directed at changing leader behavior need to be designed with consideration given to the personality traits of the individuals involved.


It is advocated by some leadership scholars that training managers to develop CL behaviors will improve their personal effectiveness, enhance followers motivation, and facilitate the attainment of organizational objectives (Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Others have questioned whether it is morally defensible to train CL behaviors (Roberts & Bradley, 1988). We have argued in this paper that charisma may be used for manipulative and self-seeking purposes, ultimately leading to the deception and exploitation of followers. Thus, prior to embarking on training efforts, it is essential to develop appropriate selection criteria for candidates such that the probability of socially desirable and functional effects on followers, organizations, and society are increased and deleterious effects are minimized.

Research concerning individual characteristics and organizational conditions that enhance the efficacy of leadership development efforts is clearly required. It is doubtful that individuals who are motivated by uninhibited power needs, and characterized by narcissism, authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, low self-esteem and external locus of control will respond positively to such training.

To conclude, in this paper we have reviewed the theory and empirical evidence relevant to individual characteristics associated with charismatic leadership. We hope that this review will stimulate practitioners to seriously consider their own leadership behaviors, and design organizational settings and interventions to minimize the occurrence of personalized CL. Further, we hope that this review will stimulate the further development of theory and encourage empirical research relevant to the exercise of CL.

REFERENCES

Abramson, L. & D. Martin. (1981). Depression and the causal inference process. In J. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (pp. 117-168). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press. Ashour, A.S. & G. Johns. (1983). Leader influence through operant principles: A theoretical

and methodological framework. Human Relations 36, 603-626. Avolio, B.J. & B.M. Bass. (1988). Transformational leadership, charisma, and beyond. In J.G.

Hunt, B.R. Baliga, H.P. Dachler & C.A. Schriesheim (Eds)., Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 2949). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Barnlund, D.C. (1962). Consistency of emergent leadership in groups with changing tasks and members. Speech Monographs 29,45-52.

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B.M. (1988). Evolving perspectives on charismatic leadership. In J.A. Conger and R.A.

Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 40-77). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bennis, W. & B. Nanus. (1985). Gaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row.

Biscardi, D. & T. Schill. (1985). Correlations of narcissistic traits with defensive style, Machiavellianism, and empathy. Ps_vchoIogical Reports 57, 354.


Borgatta, E.F., A.S. Couch, & R.F. Bales. (1954). Some findings relevant to the great man theory of leadership. American Sociological Review 19, 755-759.

Bouchard, D.T., Jr., D.T. Lykken, M. McGue, N.L. Segal, & A. Tellegen. (1990). Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota study of twins reared apart. Science, 2230-2250.

Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Carroll, L. (1987). A study of narcissism, affiliation, intimacy, and power motives among students

in business administration. Psychological Reports 6 1, 355-358. Christie, R. & F.L. Geis. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press. Clover, W.H. (1988). Transformational leaders: Team performance, leadership ratings and first

hand impressions. In K.E. Clark & M.B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership. West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.

Conger, J.A. & R.N. Kanungo. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management 22, 637-647.

Conger, J.A. & R.N. Kanungo. (1988). Training charismatic leadership: A risky and critical task. In J.A. Conger & R.N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership, the elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 309-323). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Curphy, G.J. (1990). An empirical evaluation of Bass (1985) theory of transformational and transactional leadership. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota.

Davidson, R.J., C. Saron, & D.C. McClelland. (1980). Effects of personality and semantic content of stimuli on augmenting and reducing in the event-related potential. Biological Psychology 11, 249-255.

DePree, M. (1989). Leadership is an art. New York: Dell. Drory, A. & U.M. Gluskinos. (1980). Machiavellianism and leadership. Journal of Applied

Psychology 65, 8 l-86. Emmons, R.A. (1981). Relationship between narcissism and sensation seeking. Psychological

Reports 48, 241-250. Emmons, R.A. (1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of the narcissistic personality

inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment 48, 291-300. Emmons, R.A. (1987). Narcissism: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology 52, 1 I-17. Epstein, G.F. (1969). Machiavelli and the devils advocate. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology 1, 38-41. Evans, M.G. (1970). The effects of supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 5, 277-298. Fodor, E.M. (1984). The power motive and reactivity to power stresses. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology 47, 853-859. Fodor, E.M. & D.L. Farrow. (1979). The power motive as an influence on use of power. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology 37, 2091-2097. Fodor, E.M. & T. Smith. (1982). The power motive as an influence on group decision making.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42, 178-185. Geis, F.L., E. Krupat, & D. Berger. (1965). Taking over in group discussion. Unpublished

manuscript, New York University. Goodstadt, B.E. & L.A. Hjelle. (1973). Power to the powerless: Locus of control and the use

of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 27, 190-196. Goodstadt, B.E. & D. Kipnis. (1970). Situational influences on the use of power. Journal of

Applied Psychology 54, 201-207. Gough, H.G. (1988). Manual for the Calzforniu psychological inventory (3rd ed.). Palo Alto,

CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.


Gough, H.G. & A.B. Heilbrun, Jr. (1975). The adjective checklist manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Graen, G. & J.F. Cashman. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers (pp. 143-165). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.

Graham, J.W. (1988). Transformational leadership: Fostering follower autonomy, not automatic followership. In J.G. Hunt, B.R. Baliga, H.P. Dachler, & C.A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 73-79). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

Harris, T.M. (1966). Machiavellianism, judgemenr, independence and attitudes toward teammate in a cooperative judgement task. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University.

Hegarty, W.H. & H.P. Sims, Jr. (1979). Organizational philosophy, policies, and objectives related to unethical decision behavior: A laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology 64, 331-338.

Higgins, E., R. Klein, Kc T. Strauman. (1985). Self-concept discrepancy theory: A psychological model for distinguishing among different aspects of depression and anxiety. Social Cognition 3, 5 l-76.

Hodgkinson, C. (1983). 7i?e philosophy of leadership. New York: St. Martins Press. Hogan, R., R. Raskin, & D. Fazzini. (1990). The dark side of charisma. In K.E. Clark & M.B.

Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 343-354). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.

Hollander, E.P. (1964). Leaders, groups, and influence. New York: Oxford University Press. House, R.J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly

16, 321-338. House, R.J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.),

Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

House, R.J. & M.L. Baetz. (1979). Leadership: Some empirical generalizations and new research directions. Research in Organizational Behavior 10, 341-423.

House, R.J. & B. Shamir. (1992). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic and visionary theories. Working paper, Department of Management, Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

House, R.J., W.D. Spangler, & J. Woycke. (1991). Personality and charisma in the U.S. presidency: A psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly 36, 364-396.

Howell, J.M. (1988). Two faces of charisma: Socialized and personalized leadership in organizations. In J.A. Conger & R.A. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 213-236). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Howell, J.M. & B.J. Avolio. (1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission of liberation? Academy of Management Executive 6,43-54.

Howell, J.M. & C.A. Higgins. (1990a). Champions of technological innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35, 3 17-34 1.

Howell, J.M. & CA. Higgins. (1990b). Leadership behaviors, influence tactics, and career experiences of champions of technological innovation. Leadership Quarterly 1, 249-264.

Howell, J.M. & R.J. House. (1992). Socialized and personalized charisma: An essay on the bright and dark sides of leadership. Unpublished manuscript, Western Business School, University of Western Ontario.

Huber, V.L. & M.A. Neale. (1987). Effects of self and competitor goals on performance in an interdependent bargaining task. Journal of Applied Psychology 72, 197-203.

Isen, A., B. Mans, R. Patrick, & G. Nowicki. (1982). Some factors influencing decision-making strategy and risk taking.In M. Clark & S. Fiske (Eds.), Affect and cognition: 7he 17th annual Carnegie symposium on cognition (pp. 243-262). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.


Kenny, D.A. & S.J. Zaccaro. (1983). An estimate of variance due to traits in leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology 68, 678-685.

Kipnis, D. (1976). Thepowerholders. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kipnis, D. & J. Cosentino. (1969). Use of leadership powers in industry. Journal of Applied

Psychology 53, 460-466. Locke, E.A. & G.P. Latham. (1990). A theory of goalsetting and taskperformance. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Lord, R.G., C.L. De Vader, & G.M. Alliger. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between

personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity and generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology 7 1,402-4 10.

Mann, R.D. (1959). A review of the relationships between personality and performance in small groups. Psychological Bulletin 56, 241-270

Documents

Personality and charismatic leadership