Charismata, that
elusive phenomenon attributed to the gods ages ago, is still today considered
to hold the element of mystery in spite of the plethera of recent social science
studies on the subject.[1] Originally suggestive of powers that could
not be explained by ordinary means(Conger, 1989:22), charisma has been subject
to scores of sociological, psychological, and political studies(House,
1977:190), seeking to leave behind its original highly religious quality in
search of a behavioralistic essence. Yet
religious language continues to accompany the concept, suggestive of the
failure of scholars to capture it within behavioral terms.
There is a transcendent quality to
charisma which eludes those scholars, but can be incorporated in terms of
Rudolf Otto's (1957) Idea of the Holy.
In his inquiry into the non-rational factor in the idea of the holy(the numen),
Rudolf Otto (1957) characterizes several inter-related feeling-responses to its
object, the numen. In basing these
responses on the object of the holy rather than in the perceiver, Otto
distinguishes these feeling-responses from mere psychological and sociological
occurrences, based in the subjective experience of the person rather than in
the object itself. There is thus posited
to be a non-rational quality to the holy transcending self and society yet
applicable to the human realm. Charisma,
too, has such a dimension, as evidenced by a residual of religiosity language
even amid the modern behavioral studies which tend to assume that charisma is
strictly a function of the follower's perception (e.g. Conger & Kanungo,
1987).
Conger & Kanungo (1987:639)
argue that a deeper understanding of charisma will come from striping away its
aura of mysticism, approaching it strictly as a behavioral process. Charisma is a matter of attribution arising
out of followers' perceptions of a leader's behaviors. Yet even as Conger & Kanungo (1987)
assume that the element of mystery can be shaved off the phenonomen itself,
Conger & Kanungo(1987:637) cite literature which posits 'profound and
extraordinary' effects of charisma (House & Baetz, 1979:399), 'superhuman'
qualities(Willner, 1984), 'magical abilities'(Etzioni, 1961), and 'exceptional
sanctity'(Eisenstadt, 1968:46). Max Weber(1947:358-9; Conger, 1989:22) defines charisma as a gift that sets charismatic leaders apart from ordinary
men and causes them to be "treated as endowed with supernatural,
superhuman, or at least...exceptional powers and qualities...not accessible to
the ordinary person, but...of divine origin or as exemplary."
In view of these descriptors, it
would seem that the element of mystery is inherent in charisma itself rather
than being merely that which is left to be explained in behavioral terms. Perhaps charisma points to something beyond
not only behavior, but the very reaches of human cognition and perception. Perhaps reality does not stop at our fences
and gates. Consider for instance whether human perception and cognition can in
principle reach the limits of that which is profound, superhuman, or
sacred.
Otto(1957:1-2) views it a grave
error "that the essence of deity can be given completely and exhaustively
in 'rational' attributions".
Conceptual thought can not bind matters religious or spiritual.
Otto(1957:13) argues that the objectively-given object of the holy, the numen, gives rise to a feeling-response
of mysterium, of "that which is hidden and esoteric, that which is beyond
conception or understanding, extraordinary and unfamiliar". It is not mysterious because it has not yet
been discovered by science; rather, it is mysterious because it's object is
'wholly other', beyond the reaches of human reality. Thus Otto (1957) seeks to use thought to
point beyond itself to the surplus of meaning in the object of sacrality which
he calls the numen.
Otto's(1957) project can be applied
to charismata because the 'profound',
'superhuman', 'magical', and 'sacral' attributions seem to point beyond the
human sphere to a numinous realm of reality.
Specifically, Otto's numinous feeling-responses are in line with
descriptions of charismatic leadership in the social science literature.
In transcending the behavioralistic
psychological and sociological approaches to charismatic leadership, a fuller
and richer account of charisma will emerge.
Some not so pleasant features of charisma such as its latent propensity
to illicit terror will be highlighted.
Such qualities have laid dormant as charisma has come to be identified
with transformational leadership.[2] The presence of attractive and frightening
qualities within charisma will suggest that the mystery in the phenomenon is no
accident, and that the paradox itself points to the transcendent holy ground of
charisma.
An important key to understanding
Otto (1957) is to remember that the basis of a numinous feeling-response is not
in the person or her perception; rather, it is in the transcendent object
itself, the numen. A metaphysical
treatise on the existence of the numen (i.e. that there exists an object 'out
there' which is holy) is not the point.
Instead, the point is that the feeling-responses are not oriented to
psychological, sociological, or ethical(e.g. right conduct) phenomena. The responses are 'deep', transcending self
and societal artifacts, as they are based in an experience of reality which is
‘wholly other’, beyond the grasp of human perception or cognition.
It follows that spirituality in
leadership is not necessarily ethical leadership.[3] Otto (1957:5) argues that "to define the
holy, or sacred, as the absolute moral attribute, is inaccurate, for it
includes in addition a clear overplus of meaning". The ethical meaning was not original to the
word. Otto's point is not that religion and
ethics are mutually exclusive; instead, he wants to call attention to the uniqueness of the feeling-responses to
the sacred which are ethically neutral; they transcend ethics. There is something sui generis about the holy and its unique feeling-responses that
cannot be explained away or captured in social scientific or ethical
terms. And in fact this is true of
charisma as well.
Consider how Otto's(1957)
descriptions of the feeling-responses to the numen dovetail with descriptions
of charismatic leadership in the literature.
As described above, both charisma and Otto's(1957) numen are
mysterious. Our project now is to use
Otto's(1957) elements of mysterium to create an analytical framework for the
mystery inherent in charisma.
Otto (1957) posits five elements in
the numen's mysterium: tremendum, fascinatus, alienum, majestas, and urgency or energy. Each of these elements can also be found in
charisma, suggesting that charisma taps into the mysterium of the holy.
Tremendum
Otto(1957) distances tremendum from ordinary fear, an ordinary emotion based
on perception rather than an exterior object.
Tremendum is of a religious dread, or terrifying awe which is distinct
from fear. Its source is in the
incalculable and arbitrary energy of that which transcends the human dimension
or reality yet impinges upon us in uncalculatable ways. We are terrified of it precisely because it
is not based on the self, or the reality portrayed by the self. It is not moral or immoral, because it is
without familiar rationale but is capricious.
If you get to close to it, it's power may destroy you without rhyme nor
reason from our perspective, because it is not based in our reality but on
itself: reality that transcends.
Is charisma such a phenomenon,
eliciting terrifying awe inherently? Is
it conceivable that something which has the propensity to create warm emotional
bonds also provokes dread? What is the
nature of this paradox and to what reality does it point? Starting with tremendum, it will be argued that charismatic leaders can have a
degree of dominating power owing to their charisma sufficient to instill the
scent of awe-inspiring terror in their followers.
House(1977:191) suggests that
dominance is a characteristic of charismatic leadership in much of the
literature. Weber(1947, italics added)
in particular suggests that a charismatic leader must prove his extraordinary powers to his followers. Given such necessity as well as conditions
arising out of charisma discussed below. Charismatic power could be destructive to even the
leader’s own followers 'without cause'.
Even the mere possibility is sufficient for the odor of dread to be
inherent in charisma.
Several writers on charismatic
leadership (Berger, 1963; Dow, 1969; and Marcus, 1961) point to its revolutionary
nature. Consider how easy it is for a
leader to use arbitrary destructive force in revolutionary times when order is
being intentionally trumped.
Furthermore, the sentiments expressed by a charismatic leader may be
heavily charged and contrary to the established order, alienating some
people(Conger, 1989; Friedland, 1964). A charismatic could feel threatened in
such a context. He might act out against
others, perhaps even blindly. So a charismatic's destructive force may not be
limited to real adversaries. It could be quite irregular and thus arbitrary,
even to the followers themselves as the leader feels the necessity to prove his
power in ways that could be easily accomplished in a revolutionary
context.
If such circumstances and the potential
for such a use of power are inherent in charisma, then followers may have a
feeling-response of tremendum--going
beyond fear because the source is a great(dominating) power which may actually
destroy them without rhyme nor reason.
The possibility of one's own
existence in the world ending is inherently transcendental in the sense that
one is forced to confront reality itself, beyond the world. That charisma can have sufficient power to
bring such a scenario to pass even against the wishes and power of the follower
suggests that there is a transcendental quality in it.
In the social reality of the
business world, being fired is to have one's existence exterminated. The empty
office is a virtual tomb. That a charismatic leader can 'terminate' one at will
by virtue of the force of her charisma suggests that an employee might feel a
sense of dread even as he identifies with the leader's ideal in an empathetic
way.
The possibility that the firing
could be made by mere whim suggests that the decision is not bound by the
causal relationships in human relations and may hint at that type of reality
wherein power is totally unpredictable, ambiguous, and irregular. Thus even the mere possibility of a mere
firing may mean that a charismatic leader in business is dreaded as much as she
is loved.
An obvious example coming from the
twentieth century of tremendum in
charisma is Hitler. Marcus(1961:237-8)
argues that empathic identification with Hitler became the vehicle of
transcendence for Germans such that the follower "saw in Hitler the real
'presence' in his own time of the ultimate teleological purpose of history
itself": the Thousand Year Third Reich.
According to Marcus(1961), this
phenomenon is tied into the striving for transcendence itself, a basic human
drive which involves the condition of empathy. Transcendence here means
stepping out of one's present self into an idealized alter-ego(ibid.). The
charismatic leader identifies with an ideal, either in the world or beyond it.
So in empathizing with the leader, the follower internalizes the ideal
personified in the leader. As the ideal
is sought, so too is the leader who personifies it.
The ideal of the Reich within
History eclipsed the mundane lives of Hitler's followers and thereby freed the
Nazis to experience something 'real', having a resonance transcending there
typical social realities. The thirst for
such a transcendent ideal in personal experience is personified via charisma in
the leader himself such that he evokes empathetic longing and clinging in
identification. But the close bond contains not only love, but dread as well,
as the possibility of the ideal came to be identified with the same man who
could annihilate, with or without calculation, the very existence of the
followers seeking transcendence in the ideal.
Considering that his ideal was at odds with the world and elements withinGermany
Considering that his ideal was at odds with the world and elements within
The empathy and arbitrary (to the
followers) destructive use of power were both ingredients in the charisma
itself. It is no wonder that Germans
today view charismatic leadership as a double-edged sword, in contrast to those
American scholars who identify it with transformational leadership wherein
leaders are oriented to their followers' growth and development.
Fascinatus
In paradoxical contradiction to tremendum is fascinatus. Both are in the
mysterium of the holy. The numen is thus
not only daunting but is "the object of search, desire, and yearning for
its own sake"(Otto, 1957:32). One
seeks possession of and by it in bliss, beatitude, and rapture. That Otto's numen is both attractive and
terrifying, giving rise to yearning and dread simultaneously, suggests that it
is based not in the realm of human experience but in an aspect of reality
‘wholly other’, transcending human cognition and perception. It is thus inherently mysterious in a
paradoxical sense, with a certain binding such that the two elements are both
felt in the same phenomenon.
Much has been penned on how charisma
gives rise to fascination. Tucker (1968:735) argues that charismatic leaders
are revered by their followers, who follow out of love, passionate devotion,
and enthusiasm. Oberg(1972:22) claims
that the test for charisma is the degree of devotion and trust the leader
inspires and the degree to which it enables the follower to transcend his own
finiteness and alienation and feel made whole.
Being the agent of such transcending may well lift the agent(i.e. the
charismatic leader) to the status of an idealized hero who is empathetically
identified with by the followers(Marcus, 1961) and thus the object of yearning and
desire of an extreme nature.
Jamshedjee N. Tata, founder of Tata
Industries, and Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of India, exemplify this quality of
charisma. Both men personified the ideal
of Swadeshi, Indian political and
economic independence based on self-reliance, or 'let the Indian learn to do
things for himself'(Elwin, 1958:18).
Gandhi personified this ideal symbolically through his ever-present
practice of spinning his own yarn, while Tata became identified with it as he
went from textiles to steel production.
Whereas Gandhi's propensity to be revered by his followers is
well-known, Tata's impact on his own followers is less apparent. Tata believed that the Indian economy
could not be self-reliant, nor India
Tata and Gandhi internalized a
self-reliant strain of freedom and applied it economically and
politically. In empathizing with them,
their followers could transcend the world of oppressive Britsh rule and
experience glimpses of freedom. As a
result, these leaders were revered by their followers. Indeed, every year at Jamshedpur ,
where Tata Iron and Steel, Inc., is located, and at Bombay
If tremendum and fascinatus
are both attributable to charismatic leadership, then people such as Hitler,
Tata, and Gandhi can be seen as instances of the same phenomenon. Charisma has within it the best and the worst
of feeling-responses, and is thus normatively amoral. Charisma has within it the paradox of extreme
reverence and terror, elements of charisma which both bind the followers to the
leader. This paradox points to a power that transcends the human realm and
approaches Otto's(1957) numen. Charisma
has an element that is 'wholly other', being not of this world but alien in the
reality of its paradox and inherent mystery.
Alienum
Otto's(1957:26) numen is alienum, or 'wholly other', "beyond
the sphere of the usual, the intelligible and the familiar, filling the mind
with blank wonder and astonishment".
It points to "something inherently 'wholly other', whose kind and
character are incommensurable with our own, and before which we therefore recoil
in a wonder that strikes us chill and numb"(Ibid., p. 28). The referent object is "something which
has no place in our scheme of reality but belongs to an absolutely different
one"(Ibid., p. 29). Thus language
and human experience are used to grasp the holy even as they can never touch
it, given that its basis transcends the human reality. In other words, to grasp in faith the holy is
not to capture it, but to intuit that reality goes beyond the human dimension.
Similarly, Otto (1957) claims that the
wonder and astonishment or stupor from an experience of alienum can be prompted by extraordinary phenomena. House &
Baetz (1979) attribute 'profound' and 'extraordinary' to charisma. Several other writers suggest that
unconventionality is part of charisma (Berger, 1963; Friedland, 1964; Marcus,
1961; Martin & Siehl, 1983). But
Otto(1957) stresses the difference between alienum
and that which is merely unusual yet based in the human realm. Charisma would have to be more than just
unconventional to provoke the sort of feeling-response associated with that
which is ‘wholly other’.
Several writers attribute not merely
unconventionality but a transcendent vision to charismatic leadership(Blau,
1963; Dow, 1969; Marcus, 1961; Willner, 1984), suggesting that charisma is tied
to an ideal which transcends ordinary human existence. Weber(1947:358) claims that charismatic
leaders "reveal a transcendent mission or course of action". Transcendence is attributed implicitly to
both the qualities of the leader (e.g. supernatural, superhuman, or
exceptional) and the content of his mission(House, 1977:189).
Marcus(1961:236) views transcendence
as a stepping out of one's present self into an idealized-other. This 'other' can be within or outside of time
or history. Thus transcendence can
appear as a realizable, immanent goal within historical time, such as a
Thousand Year Reich, or as a higher state of timeless alter-ego, such as the Kingdom of God
Charisma incarnates a transcendent
ideal through which the follower identifies with a transcendent state as an
immediate reality. The root, according
to Marcus (1961:238), is the empathic identification with a hero-personality,
or charisma, seen as the transcendent self.
The charisma 'resonates' with the follower's own sense of being,
transforming it into an idealized alter-ego personified in the charismatic
leader herself. The follower’s sense of
being is thereby transformed such that the alienum
ideal is made real and experienced in the realm of the profane. The individual can transcend his own
finiteness and alienation and feel made whole(Oberg, 1972:190).
Magestas
& Energy
Otto(1957:21) goes on to argue that
as the transcendent numen is the sole and entire reality, the self in the
profane world senses its utter impotence and general nothingness or
annihilation. Unlike Schleiermacher's feeling of dependence which is not
uniquely spiritual and can have the self as referent, Otto's creature-feeling
is essentially the experience of submergence into nothingness before an
overpowering, awe-inspiring absolute might which is taken to be objective and
outside of the self. This is the
majestas of the numen.
Such a feeling-response "starts
from a consciousness of the absolute superiority or supremacy of a power other
than myself"(Ibid., p. 21). This
force is felt to have an urgency or energy that is urgent, active, compelling
and alive, coming from beyond the human realm. The power dimension of charisma
has already been discussed under tremendum.
Shils(1965) links the majesty of
charisma with its transcendent feature: persons holding positions of great
power will be perceived as charismatic because of the 'awe-inspiring' quality
of power, the only requirement is that the expression of power must appear to
be integrated with a transcendent goal(House, 1977).
According to Berlew(1974:269), such
a visionary goal provides meaning and generates excitement. The meaning is exciting because it is
transcendental, departing from the conventional social reality and touching on
an ideal in or beyond history.
Individuals test their notions of reality against the opinions of others where interpersonal evaluation is highly subjective (Festinger, 1950). Leaders can personify or place in their mission idealized values which become salient as basic assumptions about the nature of human nature, relationships and activity, as well as truth, time, space, and the nature of personal, social and metaphysical reality itself(Shein, 1992:94-5). Religion can be directly connected ot such deeper assumptions about truth, time, space, human nature and reality(Ibid.). Leadership can thus involve a spiritual dimension as it makes salient basic assumptions.[4] The revolutionary character of charismatic leadership can easily involve an enhanced awareness of basic assumption. As one paradigm is intentionally replaced by another, one’s existing basic assumptions lose their transparency.
Individuals test their notions of reality against the opinions of others where interpersonal evaluation is highly subjective (Festinger, 1950). Leaders can personify or place in their mission idealized values which become salient as basic assumptions about the nature of human nature, relationships and activity, as well as truth, time, space, and the nature of personal, social and metaphysical reality itself(Shein, 1992:94-5). Religion can be directly connected ot such deeper assumptions about truth, time, space, human nature and reality(Ibid.). Leadership can thus involve a spiritual dimension as it makes salient basic assumptions.[4] The revolutionary character of charismatic leadership can easily involve an enhanced awareness of basic assumption. As one paradigm is intentionally replaced by another, one’s existing basic assumptions lose their transparency.
As charisma has an alienum quality, it
is in essence transcendental, so its own contribution to meaning would be felt
as real—as a transcendent ideal in itself. That is, charismata is that resonance
wherein transcendence itself is felt as meaningful and significant
in a personified idealized alter-ego. A
connection is felt which transcends profane ordinary existence to the real.
In short, charisma hints at the
existence of the numen in and beyond the human realm of reality. Charisma is felt as tremendum, fascinatus, alienum, majestas, and urgent energy, transcending transformative and moral
leadership as an instance of spirituality in leadership because it is
inherently transcendental. Charisma is
itself amoral, and need not lead to the development of followers; in fact, it
may lead to their destruction even as the followers rever the leader. It is this paradox inherent in the phenomenon
which is the clearest indication of its transcendental basis.
See: Spiritual Leadership in Business.
See: Spiritual Leadership in Business.
Bibliography
Berger,
Peter L. (1963) Charisma and religious innovation: The social
location of Israelite prophecy, American Sociological Review, 28,
940-950.
Berlow,
D. E. (1974) Leadership and organizational excitement, in D. A. Kolb,
I.M. Rubin and J. M. McIntyre (Eds.)
Organizational psychology: A book
of
readings,
2nd ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Blau,
P. (1963) Critical remarks on Weber's theory of authority. American
Political
Science Review, 28, 940-950.
Conger,
J. A. (1989) The charismatic leader:
Behind the mystique of
exceptional
leadership.
San Francisco
Conger,
J.A. (Ed.) (1994) Spirit at work:
discovering the spirituality in
leadership. San
Francisco
Conger,
J. A., and Kanungo, R. N. (1987) Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational
settings, Academy of
Management
Review,
12(4): 637-647.
Dow,
T. E., Jr. (1969) The theory of charisma.
Sociological Quarterly, 10,
306-318.
Eisenstadt,
S.N. (1968) Max Weber: On charisma and
institution building.
Elwin,
V. (1958) The story of Tata steel. Bombay
Press.
Etzioni,
A. (1961) A comparative analysis of
complex organizations. NY:
Free Press.
Festinger,
L. (1950) Informal social communication. Psychological
Review,
57, 271-282.
Friedland,
W. H. (1964) For a sociological concept of charisma. Social Forces, 43,
18-26.
Harris,
F. R. (1958) Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata: A chronicle of his life.
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).
House,
R. J., & Baetz, M. L. (1979) Leadership: Some empirical
generalizations and new research
directions. In B. M. Staw (Ed.),
Research
in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 399-401). Greenwich
CT: JAI Press.
House,
R. J. & Shamir, B. (1993) Towards the integration of tranformational,
charismatic, and visionary
theories. In M. M. Chemers & R.
Ayman
(Eds.), Leadership theory and
research: Perspectives and directions.
Marcus,
J. T. (1961, March) Transcendence and charisma.
Western Political
Quarterly, 14,
236-241.
Martin,
J., & Siehl, C. (1983) Organizational culture and counterculture: An
uneasy symbiosis. Organizational Dynamics, 12 (2), 52-64.
Oberg,
W. (1972) Charisma, commitment, and contemporary organization
theory. Business Topics, 20 (2), 18-32.
Otto,
R. (1957) The idea of the holy: An
inquiry into the non-rational factor
in the
idea of the divine and its relation to the rational, John
W. Harvey, trans.,
Shein,
E. H. (1992) Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco
Jossey Bass.
Shils,
E. A. (1965) Charisma, order, and status. American Sociological
Review, 30,
199-213.
Tucker,
R. C. (1968) The theory of charismatic leadership. Daedulus, 97,
731-756.
Worden, S. (2017) Spiritual Leadership in Business: Transcending the Ethical. Seattle: Amazon Books.
Worden, S. (2017) Spiritual Leadership in Business: Transcending the Ethical. Seattle: Amazon Books.
Weber,
M. (1947) The theory of soical and
economic organization.
A. M. Henderson and T. Parsons,
trans., Glencoe , IL
Willner,
A. R. (1968) Charismatic political
leadership: A theory. Princeton ,
NJ: Princeton University
Willner,
A. R. (1984) The spellbinders:
Charismatic political leadership.
Yukl,
G. (1998) Leadership in organizations (4th ed.) Englewood
Prentice Hall.
Yukl,
G. (1999) An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transform-
ational and charismatic leadership
theories. The Leadership
Quarterly, 10(2): 285-306.
Zalesnik,
A., & Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1975) Power
and the corporate mind.
[1]
For a review of this literature, consult the two issues of volume 10 (1999) of The Leadership Quarterly devoted to charismatic and transformational
leadership.
[2]
See Conger(1989) and House & Shamir(1993), as accounts which minimize the
differences between transformational and charismatic leadership. These writers are at pains to account for a
Hitler, as they identify charisma with transforming followers in their growth
and development. See Yukl(1998; 1999)
for a critique of this identification.
[3]
Thus, the view that religion can be reduced to a social ethic is rejected.
[4]
Note that ‘make salient’ does not necessarily mean ‘change’. Thus leadership can have a spiritual
dimension without involving change.
