Charisma is a leadership skill set that can be taught, and therefore learned or acquired by business leaders.

Charisma as an Acquired Skill Set: Can Business Leaders Be Taught How to Turn on the Charm?

Introduction

Charismatic leadership (or CL) has, for some time now, been one of the more hotly debated topics among researchers and scholars in business and the social sciences. At a very fundamental level, questions have been raised about whether charisma is an attribute of the individual, or a process sparked by situational factors and the dynamic relationship between a given leader and his or her followers. Much ink has also been spilled about whether charismatic leadership produces positive long-term outcomes in a business setting, or is really better suited to political and/or religious contexts. Going further still, some pundits argue that charisma is an absolutely essential characteristic of the very best business leaders—a sort of gateway attribute to transformational leadership—while others posit that CL can and often does promote the worst kinds of leader and group behavior, ranging from Narcissism and power lust on the part of the leader, to dependence and blind worship on the part of followers. Central to all of these contending points of view is the question of whether charisma is an innate quality of the “born” or “natural” leader, or instead a related set of skills capable of being taught to and learned by a sufficiently apt and dedicated student.

Thesis

Charisma is a leadership skill set that can be taught, and therefore learned or acquired by business leaders.

Charisma, a Working Definition

Precise definition of experimental terms is a perennial challenge for social scientists. Unlike their counterparts in the physical sciences, these researchers often find themselves wedded to the everyday language of everyday people. Such language is rich, evocative, expressive and, for the empirically inclined, all but maddening in its ambiguity. This is certainly the case with regard to the term charisma, and the consequent study of charismatic leadership. Charisma is a word of Greek origin meaning “divine favor” or, equivalently, a “gift of the gods.” Souls touched by charisma, back in the days of the early Christian apostle St. Paul, were thought to have special supernatural powers, such as the ability to work miracles, commune with higher powers or speak in tongues (Varghese). The great German sociologist Max Weber picked up on this early usage of the term, but modified it somewhat, in defining charisma as “… a certain quality of an individual’s personality by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men.” (Weber 358) Thus, while Weber still saw charisma as the purview of heroes, prophets and saviors, his definition did pull the overtly religious construct one step closer to Earth from its original celestial roost.

Over time, everyday usage of the term has tended to accelerate the trend toward broader and more mundane applications of it: Once reserved for the divinely inspired few, or at least heroic sorts, we now commonly describe everyone from high-school basketball coaches, to non-profit administrators, to C-level banking executives as “charismatic.” As Jay Conger observes:

Charismatic relationships have been reported in such diverse organizations as suburban school systems, communes, utopian communities, colleges, Alcoholics Anonymous, the National Council on Alcoholism, the Chippewa tribe, a maternity home, a British manufacturing firm, labor unions, and royal families, among others (Conger and Kanungo 60).

Wherever there are people in group settings, it appears, there too is the potential for the emergence of charismatic leadership. This simultaneous dilution and expansion of the word’s original meaning, though posing very real experimental challenges, is also what makes charisma a topic worthy of study and discussion for social scientists in general and students of business in particular. Charisma, thus defined, now has permission to enter the corporate boardroom and, ultimately, every level of an organization’s structure, down to and including the frontlines occupied by customer-facing personnel.

In the end, dictionary definitions of charisma become at worst tautological and at best referential to other, equally imprecise terms. We might, for example, describe a charismatic individual as having a “magnetic” personality, then further define magnetic as meaning the power of attraction, which leaves us needing to define attraction, and so on ad infinitum. Plainly, this is not the stuff of which dependent and independent variables are made. Researchers, in response, have developed various operational constructs to define and model charisma, and charismatic leadership, in order to render the subject more amenable to precise study both in the laboratory and in the field. While there is no clearly favored approach at present, there is sufficient convergence of opinion among contending schools of thought that many useful insights and actionable conclusions can be drawn. A brief historical review of these constructs, and their development, will help shed light on areas where widespread agreement pertains, as well as on those areas where the experts tend to be of differing opinions.

Historical Background

We have already had occasion to mention Max Weber, arguably the most seminal figure in twentieth-century Sociology and, even now, still a widely cited source on CL for current scholars. Among Weber’s many achievements was to free the study of leadership from the grip of the so-called “Great Man” theory that had dominated Western discourse on the subject between the mid-1800’s and the post-WWI era when Weber began publishing his work. The Great Man theory was first popularized in 1840 by Scottish historian Thomas Carlyle, who applied it to figures as diverse as Napoleon Bonaparte, Muhammad the Prophet, Shakespeare and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. A great man, according to Carlyle, is a “living light-fountain, which is good and pleasant to be near.” (1) The history of mankind, in fact, can from this perspective be reduced to the biographies of such men, through whose thoughts and actions entire peoples and civilizations are advanced. And, although his theory argues that great men are born, not made, Carlyle suggests that we all might profit by studying and modeling their ways insofar as we can (3). It is easy, with the benefit of hindsight, to write off Carlyle’s thesis—along with subsequent elaborations of it by such influential thinkers as the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and Danish theologian Soren Kierkegaard—as nothing more than overblown Romantic hogwash. However, we must remember that in the world of the nineteenth century, and even into the first few decades of the twentieth, larger-than-life individuals still dominated whole industries, vast empires and entire realms of thought. This was a world in which Napoleon sought to rule the length and breadth of Europe, John D. Rockefeller both horizontally and vertically integrated the world’s oil industry, Einstein dared to re-define all of Physics, Darwin conquered Biology and Freud claimed the entirety of the human psyche as his scholarly domain. National flags were planted into polar ice caps, towering mountains were scaled, and epic novels were written. It was a time of almost boundless faith in individual human greatness, and only the atrocities of the First World War, combined with the increasing complexity and specialization brought about by industrialization, would eventually be sufficient to curb it (Hayes).

Of course, remnants of the Great Man school of thought persist to this day, subtly coloring our point of view and showing up, most notably, through common phrases such as “born leader,” “natural athlete,” “presidential timber,” and the like. There is something inherently reassuring about assuming that leaders are who they are, and attain their position, by virtue of innate qualities. Such a state of affairs legitimizes prevailing reality by implying (a) that the “right people” are in charge through a process not unlike natural selection; and (b) that those who are not in charge were from the outset destined to be followers anyhow, and therefore ought to quietly and happily accept their lot.

Weber’s conception of ‘charismatic authority’ has several elements that, at first glance, appear to support the Great Man approach. He speaks of charismatic leaders, for instance, as near-mythic figures who are “outside the realm of everyday routine and the profane sphere” (361), unconstrained by traditional rules, unfettered by rational limitations (such as economic ones), and focused solely on the pursuit of their calling (358-362). Charismatic leaders, according to Weber, arise in times of crisis and uncertainty; attract devotees through force of personality and clarity of vision; and act as agents of revolutionary change vis-à-vis the established order. They see farther, touch people more deeply and stand by their convictions more resolutely than other kinds of leaders. So, how does Weber’s construct differ from that of say, someone like Nietzsche, in defining charisma and the charismatic leader? The above, after all, sounds a lot like the philosopher’s idealized “superman.”

Weber is different from his predecessors and contemporaries in at least two important respects: First, he views charisma as but one of three possible sources of legitimate power (the others being rational and traditional), not the sole source; and second, he acknowledges the role of followers in legitimizing charismatic authority. This last is of critical significance as it tells us that charisma means nothing without the consent and approval of constituents: “It is recognition on the part of those subject to authority which is decisive for the validity of charisma.” (359) Going further, Weber observes that charismatic leaders are expected to produce outsized results that match up not only to the grandeur of their vision, but also to the degree of devotion that followers accord them. When the heroic leader falls short and the ‘miracles’ stop happening, follower approval—and hence, the power that stems from it—is swiftly withdrawn. In this respect, Weber is thoroughly modern in outlook and approach. His situational and relational perspective on CL rejects the leader-centric bias in research that lingers to this day, and anticipates by decades the work of today’s best exchange and contingency theorists.

Post-Weberian Research

Despite the depth of his insights into charismatic leadership, Weber did not research or publish extensively on the subject. In fact, it was not until the latter half of the 1970’s and into the 1980’s that CL began to be studied seriously as a topic of research unto itself. Early investigators, not surprisingly, focused on the traits and behaviors exhibited by charismatic leaders. Their observations not only broadened and refined the rough outline of the “heroic revolutionary” provided by Weber, but also drew liberally upon advances in organizational and leadership research in general, such as leader-member exchange, expectancy and idiosyncrasy-credit theory. The picture that has emerged, and which is widely though not universally agreed upon, is composed of an inter-related cluster of abilities, tendencies and traits that all charismatic leaders seem to possess in varying degrees and proportions (Bass in Conger and Kanungo 46-49). These abilities, tendencies and traits include:

Emotional expressiveness, inclusive of animated facial expression, positive body language, eye contact, etc.
Self confidence
Self determination
Certainty of conviction, including a willingness to “walk the talk” by resisting mainstream opinion, challenging the status quo, exhibiting self-sacrificing behavior, and surmounting obstacles
Clarity of purpose/sense of mission
Sense of righteousness
Emotional intelligence (insight into the needs, wants and values of followers)
High level of energy and activity
Verbal eloquence/rhetorical ability
Unconventional thinking and behavior, a trait singled out by Weber and later elaborated into a theory of leader-member exchange called idiosyncrasy credit, or IC, by Edwin P. Hollander and his associates (Pierce and Newstrom 254-262)

Other commonly cited attributes of charismatic leaders are a flair for strategic vision, an entrepreneurial bent, dissatisfaction and impatience with the status quo, a passion for positive change, and environmental sensitivity (Conger, Kanungo and Menon 748-749). However, some theorists include the above-mentioned attributes as elements in the charismatic skill set, while others reserve them for describing transformational leaders only (Pierce and Newstrom 365-366). Here again, issues of terminology come to the fore, with certain researchers treating labels such as charismatic, transformational, inspirational and visionary as essentially interchangeable, and others preferring to draw clear-cut distinctions between them (Shamir, House and Arthur 577).

As Hollander has astutely observed, it was natural for researchers, at last initially, to focus almost exclusively on the leader. He or she is, after all, the lead actor on stage and the most visible target of inquiry (Pierce and Newstrom 254). Additionally, the leader is but one in number, while the ranks of followers are, famously, legion. A leader’s behaviors, decisions and effects are therefore comparatively simple to isolate and test. But it is undeniable that followers literally “make” the leader, if not electively through emergent processes, then simply by virtue of being available to be led—if no followers, then no leader. The study of the effect of leader behavior on followers, and more specifically, of how CL answers specific follower needs and wants, was a logical progression for new veins of research.

Here, too, a fair amount of consensus has been attained, thanks mainly to the work of behavioral theorists and process-oriented researchers like Bernard Bass, J.M. Burns, Boas Shamir, R.J. House, John Conger and many others. The newer schools of thought posit that certain ‘exemplary’ leader behaviors, such as self-sacrificial actions and the framing of commonly held values, have the effect of shifting follower behavior from a purely rational, self-serving economic plane to a higher moral and collective level (Shamir, House and Arthur 580-582). The leader in this scenario offers followers a promising ideological view of the future, is visibly present and emotionally accessible to constituents, conveys high personal integrity through both word and deed, and maintains a positive, upbeat, can-do attitude. He or she sets high expectations for the group as a whole, as well as for the individuals who comprise it, but supports those expectations by expressing faith in the worthiness of the mission and confidence in the ability of everyone involved to pitch in and achieve the common goal (Kouzes and Posner 276-279).

For the follower, the psychic payoffs for committing to the leader and his or her mission are manifold: First, self-esteem is heightened by the leader’s trust in the individual, as well as by connection to a cause and a group perceived as larger (morally and/or ethically) than oneself. Second, the follower’s self-concept is reinforced, thereby increasing feelings of self-consistency and reducing cognitive dissonance, or internal conflict. Third, and finally, effort expended on behalf of the collective and its common goal becomes, for the follower, at once a form of self-expression and a validation of the self. Work is no longer work per se at this level of commitment, but acquires a degree of significance and meaning that far transcends mere task completion. The organizational benefits that ensue when followers are emotionally and psychologically connected to their work in this manner are realized on two fronts. On the one hand, there is enhanced trust, loyalty and obedience to the leader (House in Pierce and Newstrom 336); and on the other, there is increased willingness on the part of followers to engage in self-sacrificial acts (ideally, in emulation of the leader), to commit to stretch goals and, in general, to consistently go ‘above and beyond’ in the pursuit of the group’s mission (Yukl). When followers are committed to this extent, it does not require much imagination to realize that highly prized OCB’s such as teamwork, sportsmanship, conscientiousness, honesty, integrity and high effort naturally fall into place.

Of course, theoretical constructs do not typically play out quite so neatly in practice: Even under the most favorable circumstances, not all followers will be equally devoted to the leader, or connected to the group. Some people will be more ‘gung-ho’ than others and, owing to the highly charged atmosphere created by charismatic change, opposition may in fact be more pointed under a charismatic leader than, say, under a manager who leads in a transactional or instrumental fashion. As with so many other aspects of CL, though, opposition to charismatic leaders and within charismatically led groups tends to be an “all or nothing” proposition. Once followers choose to identify with the charismatic leader and meld with the group, powerful psychological and social forces reinforce the ties that link members not only to the leader, but also to one another. It is this characteristic, no doubt, that has caused some to criticize CL for its capacity to spark slavish, unthinking devotion and—through the power of group dynamics—effectively chill any possibility of dissent.

This dichotomy between the enabling and disabling aspects of charismatically led groups has been the subject of interesting research by Jane M. Howell and her colleagues, who have proposed that constituents identify with and relate to charismatic leaders on two different levels, the first being on a personalized level, the second on a socialized level (Howell and Shamir in Pierce and Newstrom 348-363). Followers in the first camp, according to this line of thought, look to and rely upon the leader to clarify ambiguity, reduce uncertainty, establish direction and breathe meaning into work and life. To oversimplify greatly, this is the leader as ‘guru’ and object of worship and devotion. Followers at the second or socialized level, by contrast, have graduated to a higher understanding of the group’s mission and have consciously internalized the group’s goals as their own. Faith in the leader still pertains, but is informed and, to a degree, circumscribed by the needs of the collective. An officer in WWII, for instance, might have felt a tremendous amount of personal and professional loyalty to General Patton, while simultaneously maintaining a higher and overarching allegiance to the United States.

Before leaving the topic of current research, it is important to note that much progress has been made in testing and measuring the outcomes and efficacy of charismatic leadership. Especially noteworthy is the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Conger and Kanungo; Yukl), a tool that compares the efficacy of various management styles in terms of their effects on follower attitudes and perceptions. The MLQ, as it is called, is focused on follower perceptions and leader-follower relationships, and so marks a significant step up from purely behavioral studies in terms of allowing the researcher to isolate variables and empirically prove or disprove specific propositions. Observed behavior in the field is often difficult to read correctly because it seldom comes from one place and is typically altered and affected by multiple factors, not all of which may be readily apparent. On a very simple level, what happens if the leader whose behavior we are observing displays a mix of instrumental, transactional and charismatic behaviors, as is often the case? Or exhibits widely divergent behaviors with different constituents, as LMX theory might suggest? The MLQ, which has undergone numerous refinements and revisions since it was first introduced, has helped overcome these challenges. And, more generally, the newfound focus on follower perceptions, as well as on the processes by which leader behavior brings about changes in follower attitudes and behaviors, has definitely added clarity to the conversation.

Current thinking indicates that CL has a benign impact on follower job satisfaction and on follower perceptions in most cases, and on financial outcomes in business in situations characterized by uncertainty and/or the need for transformative change (Conger, Kanungo and Menon; Waldman et al.). Notably, those who work for and identify with charismatic leaders tend to feel confident, empowered, connected and energized (Kouzes and Posner 21-23). Optimal results seem to occur when the personal qualities and stated vision of the leader align with the emotional needs of followers in a situation suited to charismatic leadership. Interestingly, scholarly studies have shown that the “right situation” does not necessarily have to equate to a full-blown crisis (Bass in Conger and Kanungo 57; Conger and Kanungo 329). Charismatic and transformational leaders, it seems, can ‘raise the stakes’ by identifying threats on the horizon, calling for institutional reform in stagnant, overly bureaucratic organizations, calling attention to new opportunities, and/or pressing for ongoing innovation (Yukl; Conger and Kanungo).

Examples of Famous Charismatic Leaders

History shows us that charismatic leaders come from every walk and station in life, can be of either gender (a seemingly recent revelation!), and are not limited to any particular geographic region, any specific creed or any one culture. Charisma, in short, is a global phenomenon that plays well and attracts passionate followers wherever and whenever the right leader finds himself in the right situation at the right time. The list below is obviously selective and heavily weighted toward religious and political figures—and includes some names, such as Joan of Arc and the Ayatollah Khomeini, who cross over into both. This overweighting of CL in the realms of politics and religion, which was noted by Weber early on, is at least in part an outcome of using fame as a criterion. Business, as important as it is and always has been in the ‘here and now,’ has a tough time competing against religion and politics as a vector of profound social and cultural change over time and across large numbers of people. However, given the sheer size and far-reaching influence of today’s largest multi-national firms, this may not necessarily continue to be the case going forward.

It’s also worthwhile to point out that our admittedly selective and incomplete list contains heroes and villains (an often interchangeable lot, depending on one’s point of view), staunch advocates of peace and determined megalomaniacs, and individual personalities that range from quiet and reflective on the one hand, to aggressively assertive and bombastically over the top on the other. That charisma has potential to be an extraordinarily powerful tool for motivating followers is a widely accepted and empirically tested truth; what is more debatable, though, are contentions by certain commentators that CL itself is fundamentally de-stabilizing (Weber), inherently prone to leader abuse (Stadler and Dyer) and/or highly counterproductive in a business environment (Khurana). This line of reasoning seems profoundly misguided to me: Any type of knowledge or ability, if used for overtly evil or selfish ends, can be claimed to be too potent a medicine for human consumption. Ultimately, it is up to the leader to determine in which direction the flock is to be led, and up to the flock to decide whether or not (or, more commonly, how far) they wish to follow.

Charismatic Religious Leaders

Siddhartha Gautama (The Buddha)

Moses

Jesus

Muhammad the Prophet

Joan of Arc

Martin Luther

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Jim Jones

David Koresh

Charismatic Political Leaders

Attila the Hun

Alexander the Great

Abraham Lincoln

Kemal Ataturk

Mahatma Gandhi

Benito Mussolini

Adolph Hitler

Winston Churchill

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Eva Peron

John F. Kennedy

Fidel Castro

Ayatollah Khomeini

Nelson Mandela

Osama bin Laden

Charismatic Business Leaders

Walt Disney

John DeLorean

Lee Iacocca

James Skilling

Steve Jobs

Sir Richard Branson

One cannot scan the above lists without noticing, as many commentators have, the fairly obvious linkage between CL and crisis. In scholarly parlance, crisis seems to be an antecedent of charismatic leadership. As we saw earlier, though, a gifted charismatic leader, especially in a business setting, may choose to ‘manufacture’ the turbulence needed to exercise his talents to the fullest, and then activate followers accordingly. The following case study exemplifies that concept in action.

Sir Richard Branson: Serial Entrepreneur, Charismatic Leader

If there were a poster child for charisma in today’s business world, Sir Richard Branson, founder of Great Britain’s Virgin Group, would be a likely candidate. Brash, irreverent, inspired, undaunted and irrepressible, he is the polar opposite of the conventional corporate CEO. Of course, entrepreneurial types often think, act and work differently than business leaders who have risen through the ranks. But Branson is different in kind. For starters, his company presently consists of more than 400 separately run enterprises whose principal unifying feature is the personality and style of the leader himself (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 76). Most serial entrepreneurs move from one venture to the next, or at least build and acquire businesses around a core theme or competency. Not Branson. He just keeps adding to his sprawling and ever-expanding empire whenever he sees markets that are underserved or, in his view, poorly served.

In this respect, his outlook and behavior support the notions that charismatic leaders (a) are perpetually dissatisfied with the way things are and (b) know how to constructively ‘stir things up’ in the name of identifying and creating new opportunities. Branson’s entrepreneurial career began in earnest when he challenged the status quo in the music industry with Virgin Records, and has since seen him go head-to-head with one corporate Goliath after another, including such well-established brands as British Airways (Virgin Atlantic), British Rail (Virgin Rail Group), and the global telecoms (Virgin Mobile), to recall just a few of the more prominent examples. Besides his relentless questioning of prevailing wisdom and practice, this swashbuckling bon vivant and billionaire exhibits several other commonly cited charismatic tendencies, including…

Appealing to constituencies inside and outside his corporate empire on an ideological level: Branson stands for something—and, in fact, many things—that people understand and can relate to. He is, for example, a huge champion of consumerism, as well as prominent social causes such as the prevention of HIV/AIDS. As Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner observe, Branson “turns business enterprise into moral enterprise.” (77)
Building a sense of collective identity: Virgin Group, despite being so large and dispersed an organization, remains philosophically ‘of a piece.’ People who work there, like the founder himself, tend to embody and express certain core values, such as entrepreneurial thinking, customer service through consumer advocacy, and a willingness to take on larger opponents—including the government and quasi-governmental institutions like the British Lottery—anytime and anywhere. Branson has successfully created a combative, yet fun-loving “us against the [traditional corporate] world” mentality that resonates deeply not only with Virgin Group employees, but also with customers, the press, advocacy groups and others.
Self-sacrificing behavior: When Branson won a landmark personal libel suit against British Airways, he didn’t keep a shilling for himself; the entire award was distributed to his employees (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 97). Tellingly, he had turned down a lucrative out-of-court settlement offered earlier in the proceedings, exemplifying yet another CL tendency, that is, standing up for your values.
Taking risks: Branson’s well publicized and ill-fated attempt to circumnavigate the planet in a hot-air balloon is just one example of his willingness to take bold, but always thoroughly calculated risks in the name of business, social reform or, in this case, sheer adventure. If you worked for someone like Branson, would you ever wonder if it was acceptable to float a new idea? Along a similar vein, the global balloon trip also epitomizes the charismatic’s penchant for engaging in symbolic acts (Yukl).
Showing vulnerability: Despite his propensity for finding the limelight, Branson displays a notable discomfort and lack of polish when on-camera. This flaw, however, has only served to further establish his authenticity and endear him all the more to constituents (Goffee and Jones 65-66).
Enabling others through a combination of high expectations and expressions of confidence: Employees of Virgin Group are not only encouraged to present ideas for new business ventures, but also to help start them out and share in the profits if the idea comes to fruition. The concept for the cheekily named Virgin Bride chain of bridal boutiques, for instance, came from a Virgin Atlantic flight attendant who subsequently played a major role in launching the business (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 92).

The extent of Richard Branson’s personal charisma is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that he has had the normally rapacious British press seemingly eating out of his hand for the past four-plus decades. Is there any greater testimony to a public figure’s charm, at least in Great Britain? Even the most popular British PM’s and football heroes have sooner or later failed to meet that particular standard.

Is Charisma Innate, Learned or Both?

Great charismatic business leaders such as Sir Richard Branson, Lee Iacocca and Walt Disney, like their counterparts in politics and religion, loom as towering figures. Surely, then, there must be something of substance in Thomas Carlyle’s contention that such giants are born rather than made. Research, however, happily suggests otherwise. While charismatic leaders may ‘work wonders’ in organizations or even in society at large, they are at bottom simply superbly skilled and effective communicators who exhibit a high degree of emotional intelligence (or EI), connect with others at a deep level, and communicate a compelling vision of the future that stirs the emotions of followers (Riggio). This is difficult, but not impossible stuff to learn. In fact, the skills required for effective CL may be among the more teachable types of managerial competencies. Consider, for example, how many colloquialisms embed key charismatic principles:

Look me in the eye when we talk.
Look on the bright side.
Stand up for what you believe in.
I will stand by you through thick and thin.
If at first you don’t succeed, try and try again.
Walk a mile in my shoes.
You will draw more flies with honey than with vinegar.

This is not to trivialize or dumb down CL skill sets, or the various sensitivity training and role-playing exercises that have been designed to instill them. Far from it. However, it is interesting to see how homespun wisdom confirms modern scholarship, and vice versa. And what does the research tell us? Well, depending on whom you wish to believe, somewhere between one-third (Riggio) and one-half (Antonakis, Fenley and Liechti) of CL skills are a product of natural aptitude and very early childhood development. The rest is learned, and therefore learnable (Conger and Kanungo 310, 314-319). Of course, some people will be more predisposed than others in acquiring CL skills, but that is true of any managerial or leadership competency. Some of us are more naturally adept and/or experienced at analytics than others, but no responsible organization would restrict analytic training solely to those favored few who showed a natural gift for it. Additionally, there are such beings as late bloomers and hidden gems, and it is up to enterprising organizations to uncover them.

Among those researchers who believe that CL can be taught, such as Bass, Howell, Yukl, House and Conger, there are differences of opinion as to the extent to which the requisite skills can be acquired through formal training and/or study. Generally speaking, the more contextual a researcher believes charismatic leadership to be, the more likely he or she is to feel that natural aptitude counts for more than learning. This tends to put the behavioral school at one end of the spectrum (more teachable/learnable) and the contingency school at the other (less teachable). Even so, both sides generally agree that CL can be learned. What’s more, there is also widespread consensus on the skills required for CL—namely, critical evaluation skills, visioning and strategic thinking, emotional intelligence and, perhaps most critically, communication skills. For charismatic leaders, more than most, how the message is conveyed counts nearly as much as the content of the message itself. The leader’s message, when forcefully expressed, encapsulates her vision, conveys the need for urgent change, speaks to and moves followers on an emotional level, and both articulates and shapes group identity.

The above strongly suggests that those who wish to make charisma part of their leadership repertoire ought to take a clue from great orators and actors, and master time-tested communication techniques such as storytelling, repetition, use of verbal imagery and symbols, and use of similes, metaphors and analogies, along with non-verbal correlates such as voice inflection, facial animation, and positive body language (Antonakis, Fenley and Liechti). This is so because leaders, whether they like it or not, are by virtue of their relationship to followers always “on stage.” Leaders are watched, listened to, interpreted, quoted, paraphrased, critiqued and sometimes emulated by constituents. Whether or not those constituents become tried-and-true followers, however, depends largely on whether or not the leader’s ‘act’ rings true and resonates emotionally with followers. Of course, only the leader can develop the message; but it is advanced CL skills that help amplify, animate and ultimately sell it to followers. Aspiring leaders are therefore well advised to acquire CL skills, and to continue mastering and refining those skills over the course of their careers.

Works Cited

Antonakis, John, Fenley, Marika, and Liechti, Sue. “Learning Charisma” hbr.org (June 2012): Web. <http://www.hbr.org/2012/06/learning-charisma/ar/1>

Carlyle, Thomas. On Heroes, Hero Worship, and the Heroic in History. University of California Press, 1983 (c1840). 1-5. Print.

Conger, Jay A. and Kanungo, Rabindra N. Charismatic Leadership: The Elusive Factor in Organizational Effectiveness. Jossey-Bass: Wiley. 1988.

Conger, Jay A., Kanungo, Rabinda N. and Menon, Sanjay T. “Charismatic Leadership and Follower Effects.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21 (2000): 747-767. Print.

Goffee, Robert and Jones, Gareth. “Why Should Anyone Be Led by You?” Harvard Business Review (Sept.-Oct. 2000): 63-70. Print.

Hayes, Carlton J.H. A Generation of Materialism, 1871-1900. Harper, 1941. Print.

Khurana, Rakesh. “The Curse of the Superstar CEO.” Harvard Business Review (Sept. 2002): 60-66. Print.

Kouzes, James M. and Posner, Barry Z. The Leadership Challenge: How To Make Extraordinary Things Happen In Organizations. Jossey-Bass: Wiley, 2012. Print.

Pierce, Jon L. and Newstrom, John W. Leaders and the Leadership Process: Readings, Self-Assessments and Applications. McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2011. Print.

Riggio, Ronald E. “What Is Charisma and Charismatic Leadership?” psychologytoday.com (7 October 2012): Web. <http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201210/what-is-charisma-and-charismatic-leadership>

Shamir, Boas, House, Robert J. and Arthur, Michael B. “The Motivational Effects of Charismatic Leadership: A Self-Concept Based Theory.” Organizational Science, Vol. 4, No. 4. (Nov. 1993): 577-594. Print.

Stadler, Christian and Dyer, Davis. “Why Good Leaders Don’t Need Charisma.” Sloanreview.mit.edu (19 Mar. 2013): Web. <http://www.sloanreview.mit.edu/article/why-good-leaders-don’t-need-charisma>

Trompenaars, Fons and Hampden-Turner, Charles. 21 Leaders for the 21^st Century: How Innovative Leaders Manage in the Digital Age. McGraw-Hill, 2002. 75-100. Print

Varghese, Sangeeth. “The Power of Charisma.” forbes.com (25 January 2010): Web. <http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/25/charisma-speaking-communication-leadership-managing-inspiration.html>

Waldman, David A. et al. “Does Leadership Matter? CEO Leadership Attributes and Profitability Under Conditions of Perceived Environmental Uncertainty.” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, No. 1. (2001): 134-143. Print.

Weber, Max. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Translated by A.M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons. Oxford University Press, 1947. 358-392. Print.

Yukl, Gary. “An Evaluation of Conceptual Weaknesses in Transformational and Charismatic Leadership Theories.” Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 2. (Summer 1999). Print.