Charismatic leaders, as is true of virtually all leaders, are defined by their roles and/or ability to influence the actions of others. This is, however, a unique leadership model because it relies on the sheer attractiveness and personality of the individual. As described by Max Weber, the term “charisma” is applied to a certain quality of an individual character, by virtue of which they are set apart from ordinary men and women, and perceived as being endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional, powers or qualities (Ciulla 189).
Other leadership models are marked by the leader’s intent, vision, innate authority, or their focus on the needs of followers. Conversely, a charismatic leader typically relies on powers of persuasion, and powers in place due to how others are drawn to them. It then often happens that their leaderships style is impulsive, in the sense that they do not depend upon written rules, policies, or recognized rank to lead others; it is more a process of “charm” and influence derived from force of character.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"The Dangers of a Charismatic Leader".
This effect of attractiveness being the case, it follows that the charismatic leader may actually be dangerous in an organization because this is a leader drawing strength from the emotions of followers, and no matter the realities or goals of the organization. Leadership is typically seen as reliant upon a group agenda, and a process wherein the leader guides others to accomplish specific ends. Goals, however, are immaterial when the leadership model is charismatic. Process and interactions here are based only upon the magnetism of the leader, which translates to no addressing of responsibility or rationale. Consequently, it will easily happen that the charismatic leader will make decisions not logical or reasonable. This type of leader does not typically follow rules, nor depend upon recognition of their established authority. An organization’s reason for being is then jeopardized as it must rely on the possibility that the charismatic leader will act in its interests.
Then, and because of the leader’s personality as dominant, danger exists as well in that the leader has no influence should they lose whatever quality it is so attracting others (Ciulla 192). It is not unusual, certainly, for individuals who captivate others to somehow become less attractive to them and, the moment when the leader is no longer “charismatic,” their following must dissipate. This is dangerous leadership, then, in that actual reason and goals are irrelevant to it, and because the influence completely relies upon an attraction not necessarily lasting.
On a personal level, I am able to affirm how charismatic leadership actually threatens an organization’s existence. In a previous position, I worked for such a leader; her personality created enormous influence on others, but this in turn was used only to promote her own, and usually unrealistic, ideas of how the organization should proceed. Her charisma was such that no one questioned her thinking, nor did any employees provide alternatives to her solutions. In a way inexplicable to me, this woman was able to generate support from the highest levels of management, with the result that vast systems modifications were made with no caution or investigation as to their potential impacts. Decision-making was essentially impulsive and guided by the leader’s personal perspectives, and the ultimate costs to the company were extremely high. Excessive amounts of money and effort needed to be spent to revise the systems incorrectly altered, all of which could have been avoided if the irrational decisions of a charismatic leader had been questioned, rather than blindly followed. This single case then reinforces that the organization trusting to a charismatic leader places itself at great risk.
Then, leadership is by no means restricted to organizations, and a charismatic leader may be devastating to a society, particularly when they lead religious groups and/or cults. In such settings, followers perceive the leader as godlike and consider their every word, deed, and action as prophetic. If the leader’s intentions are not good – too often the case when individuals seek to control others at these levels – the influence is then grossly unethical and frequently damaging. Jim Jones exemplifies this form of corrupted charismatic leadership; he persuaded his followers that he was in fact divine and that all of his rules, no matter how dangerous or preposterous, were divinely inspired. Jones effectively exploited the emotional and psychological needs of these followers, whose love for him eclipsed even any doubts as to his legitimacy. The ensuing tragedy is well known, but the primary point remains that the nature of charismatic leadership, organizationally or socially, is inherently removed from any adherence to acting ethically.
Ultimately, any leader in any setting, simply by virtue of the role, is obligated to behave in ways encouraging ethical behavior and furthering the interests of the followers in general. The charismatic leader is no exception because a leader has a fundamental responsibility: to ensure that their own behaviors and influences do not negatively impact society or the group in question. Not unexpectedly, it happens that the effects of charismatic leadership are subject to debate in specific instances. The Reverend Al Sharpton, for example, is a charismatic leader, knows himself as such (Taylor 139), and is usually on the scene when any national controversy arises. His following is immense and loyal, despite that, having heard him speak myself, his rhetoric often lacks focus or fails to present a point until the very conclusion. Sharpton is then criticized as exploiting his own charisma chiefly to generate unrest, and typically regarding racial matters. Here, then, is the potential danger of the charismatic leader, which exists through how personal attractiveness or force of character generates blind obedience in others, when other leadership models emphasize pragmatic intents and goals. As this is absent in charismatic leadership, the style has no foundation save the leader’s personal impact, and consequently there is an undue and unacceptable risk of unethical conduct from both leader and followers, and/or actual danger to the organization or society.
