Revisiting Weber’s charismatic leadership: Learning from the past and looking to the

future

Ivana Milosevic
Management Department
University of Nebraska
Lincoln Nebraska
Email: [email protected]

A. Erin Bass
Management Department
University of Nebraska
Lincoln Nebraska
Email: [email protected]

Corresponding author: Ivana Milosevic, College of Business Administration, University of

Nebraska, Lincoln

Email: [email protected]

Draft only. For final version see: Milosevic I., & Bass, A. E. (2014). Revisiting Weber’s
charismatic leadership: Learning from the past and looking to the future. Journal of Management
History, 20(2), 224-240
 Revisiting Weber’s charismatic leadership: Learning from the past and looking to the

future

Weber’s work needs little introduction, as his writings made a terrific impact on the

social sciences in general, and management research in particular. His writings are an important

aspect of management history that shapes much of our thinking today (Houghton, 2010).

Weber’s approach was groundbreaking, as he used rich descriptions and analysis of societies as a

whole. He explored the emergence, continuity, and change of social organizations and the

phenomena embedded within (Eisenstadt, 1968). To this end, Weber’s work was the

springboard for many avenues of research in the management field. He paved the way for work

on power (Courpasson, et al., 2012; Jermier, 1998; Katz and Kahn, 1978), economic

organization and change (Hannan and Freeman, 1984; Mintzberg, et al., 2005; Suchman, 1995),

and charisma (Bass, 1985; Bryman, 1993; Conger and Kanungo, 1987; Howell and Shamir,

2005). Particularly relevant, and our focus in this paper, is his portrayal of charisma. He

describes charisma as a quality by virtue of which extraordinary individuals are distinguished

from ordinary ones. This quality gives the bearer of charisma power, and the appearance of

supernatural strength in leadership to drive change (Weber, 1947).

Inspired by the promise of charisma, leadership scholars in the past two decades aimed to

understand charismatic leadership within the organizational context. During this time, scholars

discovered that charismatic leadership is an important antecedent to a host of beneficial

organizational outcomes, such as leader and employee effectiveness, employee job satisfaction,

and employee commitment (DeGroot, et al., 2000; Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1996; Lowe, et al.,

1996; Waldman, et al., 2004). In an effort to better understand charisma within the organizational

context, contemporary research focuses on exploring charismatic leaders’ characteristics and

behaviors at differing organizational levels (Bass, 1988; Conger and Kanungo, 1987; Klein and

House, 1995; Waldman, et al., 2004), examining roles that followers play in shaping charismatic

leadership (Choi, 2006; Ehrhart and Klein, 2001; Howell and Shamir, 2005), and on charisma as

shaped by the distance between leaders and followers (Antonakis and Atwater, 2002; Katz and

Kahn, 1978; Yagil, 1998).

The extant literature addresses a multitude of facets of charismatic leadership. However,

upon closer examination, contemporary research may have overlooked some of the important

tenets put forth in Weber’s work. Contemporary research on charismatic leadership views

charisma as a fairly stable, measurable characteristic of those in formal managerial positions.

These charismatic individuals seek to influence individual and organizational performance (Bass

and Bass, 2008; Burns, 1978; Conger and Kanungo, 1987; House, 1971; House and Shamir,

1993). Yet, this view of charismatic leadership as existing in an organizational role stands in

stark contrast to the emergent, relationship-oriented, and temporally unstable nature of

charismatic leadership put forth by Weber (1978). Given this paradox, it seems necessary to

reexamine Weber’s writings in combination with current conceptualizations of charismatic

leadership. Closer examination of Weber’s depiction of charisma thus allows us to theorize as to

how these historical findings may not just inform current practice, but also advance our future

understanding of charismatic leadership (Lamond, 2006).

In this paper, we take a closer look at Weber’s conceptualization of charisma in order to

uncover and highlight unexplored avenues in charismatic leadership research. In doing so, we

identify three questions at least partially unanswered by the extant literature: (1) The question of

the informal structure as a context for the emergence of charisma; (2) The question of following

as a dynamic power relation between leaders and followers; and finally, (3) The question of
charisma as a temporally bound phenomenon. In uncovering these questions, we offer historical

findings by situating a selection of Weber’s quotes within contemporary charismatic leadership

research to uncover conceptual implications that may provide potential avenues for future

inquiries in organizational charisma. To this end, the purpose of this paper is to revisit charisma

as conceptualized by Weber and chart future opportunities for contemporary charismatic

leadership research.

This paper is organized as follows. First, we briefly address Weber’s seminal work and

the contemporary literature on charismatic leadership. We do this to provide a theoretical context

in which our subsequent arguments are grounded. Second, we present and analyze three

questions stemming from Weber’s initial conceptualization of charismatic leadership that are yet

to be fully addressed by contemporary research. Third, we build on this discussion and argue that

researchers need to address these remaining questions and broaden their conceptual and

methodological palettes for a renaissance in charismatic leadership research to occur. Finally, we

end the paper with a call for learning from the past to advance the future of charismatic

leadership research.

Theoretical context

I. Weber’s conceptualization of charismatic leadership

I.A. The view of charisma in leaders. Weber (1978) portrays the charismatic leader as a

natural leader who, “in moments of distress–whether psychic, physical, economic, ethical,

religious, or political–were neither appointed officeholders nor professionals in the present day

sense, but rather the bearers of specific gifts of body and mind that were considered

supernatural,” (p. 1112). Thus, a charismatic leader emerges suddenly in times of need, such as

during uncertainty or distress. Further, a charismatic leader need not be an appointed leader—a
charismatic leader can emerge outside of a formal managerial position. Moreover, charisma is a

gift, and those that possess charisma also seem to develop a supernatural power over followers.

I.B. The organizational context. Given Weber’s conceptualization of the charismatic

leader, emphasis on formal positions in the organizational hierarchy, or bureaucratic structure, is

unnecessary. Weber sees charismatic leaders as not appointed or selected within the formal

bureaucratic structure, but existing in the informal structure of the organization. That is, a

charismatic leader need not hold the title of “manager” or “leader” in the organization. Rather,

charismatic leaders emerge suddenly in contexts of distress, abnormality, or extreme enthusiasm,

and disappear equally suddenly once the gifts of the emergent leader no longer exist.

I.C. The power of followers. Because charisma does not exist in the formal bureaucracy,

it does not lie in reason or cognitive appraisal of the ruled. Rather, it is conceptualized as an

emotional bond between leaders and followers. Weber emphasizes the irrationality of

charismatic leadership and offers an extreme example to illustrate his conceptualization:

“Though he creates a frenzied commitment to the battle among his comrades, the ideal-typical

berserk warrior does not have a message to those whom he inspires. His effectiveness is due

solely to his overtly expressed extreme excitement,” (cited in Greenfeld, 1985, p. 120). In other

words, charisma is an emotional bond between leaders and followers. It emerges in times of

distress and exists in an array of social relationships, fuelled by emotion and the frantic

commitment of followers. As such, although charisma is viewed as a supernatural characteristic

of individuals, it may also be described as an unstable, emotional relation that emerges in the

relationship between followers and leaders in times of distress.

I.D. The temporal context. Weber’s work on charisma was the springboard for theoretical

development of charismatic leadership. Katz and Kahn (1978) built on Weber’s work and
recognized the supernatural, yet unstable, quality of charisma. More specifically, these authors

argued that charisma in its pure form cannot remain stable. Over time, it will either transform

into a traditional role in which the manner of succession is established, or it will move toward

institutionalization (i.e. become part of the bureaucratic structure). In other words, charisma is

time-dependent. It emerges suddenly and lives briefly as relationships are created and

maintained. Further, charisma disappears equally sudden when the recognition of the charismatic

leader is removed. In sum, charisma is born in recognition of the ruled, and so does it die once

that recognition is lost. Thus, Weber portrays charisma as a temporally bound, processual

phenomenon that can be both created and destroyed.

II. Contemporary research on charismatic leadership

II.A. The view of charisma in leaders. The contemporary charismatic leadership literature

is extensive. As such, any attempt at a comprehensive review is beyond the scope of this paper

(for excellent treatments of the charismatic leadership literature see Bass and Bass, 2008;

Conger, 1999; Yukl, 1999). However, contemporary charismatic leadership research focuses on

the characteristics and behaviors of leaders—such as the importance of vision or appealing

ideological goals, the ability to build confidence in others, the ability to inspire, and the need to

influence unconventional behavior (Bass, 1985; Conger and Kanungo, 1987). In this paper, we

focus on contemporary charismatic leadership research that implicitly and explicitly deals with

three focal questions: that of charisma in the bureaucratic structure, the role of followers, and the

impact of time.

II.B. The organizational context. Contemporary research on charismatic leadership in

organizations focuses predominately on the identification of characteristics that charismatic

leaders possess (Antonakis and House, 2002; Avolio and Bass; 1985; House, 1985; Yukl and
Van Fleet, 1982). Leaders in much of this research are defined by the organizational hierarchy.

That is, the majority of contemporary research focuses on examining charisma in formally

appointed leaders. For example, contemporary charismatic leadership research focuses on

charisma of strategic leaders (Waldman et al., 2004) and how contextual factors influence the

effectiveness of leaders in organizations (Antonakis, Avolio and Sivasubramaniam, 2003).

Though the majority of work in contemporary charismatic leadership research focuses on

charismatic leadership of formally appointed leaders, Bryman (1993) is an exception. He builds

on Weber’s work and implicitly recognizes the informal nature of charisma in his discussion of

the routinization of charisma. However, Bryman focuses on the routinization, rather than the

informal nature, of charisma, and as such leaves much to be examined regarding the informal

emergence of charisma in organizations.

II.C. The power of followers. Though much contemporary research is directed at the

importance of individual characteristics, some of the first advances in contemporary charismatic

leadership research emphasize the importance of followers (Choi, 2006; Howell and Shamir,

2005). Early research indicates that leaders and followers must share basic beliefs and values for

charismatic leadership to exist (House and Baetz, 1979; Katz and Kahn, 1978). Building on this

insight, Conger and Kanungo (1987) provide a theoretical framework of charismatic leadership

in an organizational setting. They argue that charisma lies in followers’ attributions of leaders’

behaviors. In doing so, specific leadership behaviors that are attributable to the possession of

charisma in leaders are identified. In this sense, although the role of followers is recognized, the

power given to followers in determining charisma is limited. Thus, the focus remains on the

leader and the leader’s behaviors.

 Research in the last decade, however, recognizes the more active role that different types

of followers occupy in the charismatic relationship (Choi, 2006; Howell and Shamir, 2005; Klein

and House, 1995; Erez, et al., 2008). Howell and Shamir (2005) distinguish between

personalized and socialized types of charismatic relationships and suggest that the follower’s

self-concept plays a role in determining the relationship between the follower and the leader. In

socialized relationships, followers have a clear self-concept and as such derive their sense of

direction and self-expression from the leader’s message rather than from personal identification

with the leader. In personalized relationships, contrastingly, followers often have low self-

concept and are disoriented. Thus, they use the relationship with the leader as a guide for

obtaining self-confidence (Howell and Shamir, 2005). Though contemporary charismatic

leadership research acknowledges the importance of the relationship between followers and

leaders, it does so in a static sense. That is, although the follower’s role is a more active part of

contemporary charismatic leadership research, the dynamism of the follower’s involvement in

this relationship is underplayed.

II.D. The temporal context. Examination of time in contemporary charismatic research is

nearly absent. As such, how charisma emerges, is maintained, and dissipates is mostly lacking

from most contemporary charismatic leadership research. There is some agreement that crises

are the most suitable context for the emergence of charisma (Bligh, et al., 2004; Houghton,

2010), and with it a recognition that once a crisis has passed, charisma will disappear. To this

end, Bryman’s (1993) discussion of routinization is especially relevant:

“Charisma is unstable because it is oriented to the person to whom it applies and when
leaders’ powers and abilities seem to desert them or they are unable to bring benefits to
their followers, loss of charisma, or decharismatization, may ensue,” (Bryman, 1993, p.
299).
 Although Bryman (1993) raises an important point in his writings, little systematic

research examines the loss of charisma and its unstable nature (Houghton, 2010). As a result, in

reviewing contemporary charismatic leadership research, little attention is paid to the existence

of charismatic leadership in time. Thus, what is left for exploration is examination of the

circumstances driving the emergence and disappearance of charisma in organizations. Moreover,

the consequences of the emergence or disappearance of charisma in the organization is also

under-researched.

Our summary thus far suggests that although contemporary charismatic leadership

research is expansive, questions are left to be addressed. In order to provide a platform for novel

insight into charismatic leadership, we highlight the treatment of the three questions by Weber

(1978) alongside findings from contemporary charismatic leadership research in the Table 1. In

subsequent sections, we focus on these historical findings to illuminate differences in the

conceptualization of charisma and to illustrate conceptual implications that provide several

opportunities for future research.

-----------------------------------

Insert Table 1 about here

-----------------------------------

Learning from the past and looking to the future

Comparing and contrasting Weber’s conceptualization with contemporary charismatic

leadership research

Although progress in contemporary charismatic leadership research is both broad and

significant, some questions, as indicated above, still remain. At this juncture, it seems important

to look to the past to uncover what the future of charismatic leadership research may hold. In this
paper, we look at Weber’s work on charisma to illuminate some overlooked facets of

organizational charisma. In doing so, we hope to open a new dialogue in charismatic research.

Our endeavor results in several important historical findings as discussed below.

We discover that the contemporary conceptualization of charismatic leadership in

organizational roles stands in stark contrast with Weber’s (1978) view of charisma as an

emergent property in organizations that exists outside of the formal bureaucratic structure:

“In radical contrast to bureaucratic organization, charisma knows no formal and regulated
appointment or dismissal, no career, no supervisor or appeals body and no permanent
institutions which are independent of the incumbents and their personal charisma.
Charisma is self-determined and sets its own limits,” (p. 1112).

In other words, charisma is not determined, shaped, or sanctioned by the formal hierarchy—it

waxes and wanes irrespective of the formal bureaucratic structure. Even this brief quote of

Weber stands in contrast with contemporary charismatic leadership research. The focus of

contemporary research is on managerial leadership occurring in formal roles. Thus, this research

has almost entirely excluded leadership occurring outside the formal bureaucracy. Looking back

to Weber’s writings illustrates this paradox more clearly.

Secondly, although much research conceptualizes leadership as jointly determined by

followers and leaders (e.g., Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995; Hollander, 1993; Howell and Shamir,

2005; Klein and House, 1995; Uhl-Bien, 2006; Uhl-Bien and Ospina, 2012), contemporary

charismatic leadership research often overlooks the immense impact of followers on charisma.

As such, the attention given to followers in this relationship is far from the one emphasized by

Weber. Weber (1978) argues that charisma may not exist without followers: “If the people

withdraw their recognition, the master becomes a mere private person and if he claims to be

more, a usurper deserving of punishment,” (p. 1115). Accordingly, the power of followers to

shape the charisma of leaders is yet to be fully addressed in contemporary research.

 Finally, the temporally bound nature of charisma is almost unnoticed by contemporary

charismatic leadership research. Though Weber (1978), in referring to charisma, emphasizes that

“every hour of its existence brings it nearer to this end,” (p. 1120), contemporary charismatic

leadership research neglects to address this particular aspect.

Weber was thorough in his descriptions of charisma in leaders. Therefore, it would take

more than this endeavor to capture his holistic conceptualization of charismatic leadership. In

order to most parsimoniously address the three remaining questions highlighted by our historical

findings of charismatic leadership as outlined above—that of charisma in the informal structure,

the power of followers, and time—the following paragraphs specifically focus on Weber’s

depictions of these issues. By elucidating these remaining questions, we seek to provide a

groundwork upon which potential answers can be explored in future charismatic leadership

research.

The question of the informal structure: Understanding the organizational context

Weber (1978) clearly distinguishes between the bureaucratic rational rule and the

charismatic irrational rule in his writings. In particular, he argues that bureaucracy entails a

relentless pursuit of economic objectives according to a dehumanized set of rules:

“Objective discharge of business primarily means a discharge of biasness according to

calculable rules and without regard for persons….Bureaucracy develops the more
perfectly, the more it is ‘dehumanized’, the more completely it succeeds in eliminating
from official business love, hatred and all purely personal, irrational and emotional
elements which escape calculations,” (p. 975).

Organizational bureaucracy presents a formal organizational structure in which

legitimacy and power to drive economic results rest on the assumption of norms and impersonal

application of organizational rules (Pugh, et al., 1968; Thompson, 1967). Specifically,

bureaucracy emphasizes the importance of hierarchical position, rather than person, in its
treatment of managers and leaders, thus eliminating the emotional/irrational side of the

organization (Hartley, 2006; Pindur and Rogers, 1995). Organizations are viewed as formal rule-

based structures that are linked by specific goals and policies: “the essence of a model

bureaucratic organization lies in the rationalized and impersonal character of these structural

elements and of the goals that link them,” (Meyer and Rowan, 1977, p. 342). These rules

represent administrative mechanisms that govern the organization and enable the coordination of

activities. Thus, the bureaucratic structure is necessary to achieve legitimacy and efficiency, and

drive the stability of the organization (Weber, 1978).

In radical contrast to this rational and dehumanized system of rules aimed at the

maximization of economic value, organizations also inhabit an informal structure. The informal

structure coexists with the formal, bureaucratic structure. The duality of structure, or the

simultaneous existence of formal and informal structures within an organization, has been

acknowledged and debated in organizational research for decades (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997;

Giddens, 1984; Selznick, 1948). Yet, the purposes of the formal and informal structures differ

greatly. Whereas the formal structure drives economic efficiency and maximization, the informal

structure drives creativity and change (Uhl-Bien and Marion, 2009; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). The

informal structure emerges from individual interactions and various and often unpredictable

behaviors that are internal to the organization. These interactions inject uncertainty and volatility

into the organization, driving ambiguity and continuous redefinition. It is in this informal

structure that opportunities for charisma to emerge exist. According to Weber, charisma is fully

self-determined and embedded in emotional and irrational commitment. That is, the bearer of

charisma elicits following through his destined mission and rejection of the externally imposed
order. Thus, it is precisely in this informal structure that emotional, irrational, and committed

behavior may emerge:

“Genuine charismatic justice does not refer to rules; in its pure type it is the most extreme
contrast to formal and traditional prescription and maintains its autonomy toward the
sacredness of tradition as much as toward rationalist deductions from abstract norms,”
(Weber, 1978, p. 1115).

More importantly though, Weber did recognize that formal bureaucratic and informal

charismatic rule may coexist side by side. This is further emphasized by Eisenstadt (1968) who

argues that to truly appreciate Weber’s insight of the informal structure, one must transcend the

formal/informal dichotomy and explore the overlap of these organizational structures. Similarly,

Udy (1962) argues that the tension between the rational goals of economic organizations and the

irrational goals of their social milieu must always exist. As such, an organization can never attain

full rationality. Thus, formal organizational structures are unable to fully overcome the irrational

side of the organization (Selznick, 1948). Weber also recognizes that the organizational context

is an important consideration in the charismatic rule, and that the coexistence of informal

charismatic and formal bureaucratic rule is a major characteristic of a social system. To illustrate

this coexistence, Weber offers a following example:

“Whether we look at Teutonic or American Indian tribes, the charismatic hero, who
marches out with a voluntary following appears next to the chieftain of peace, who is
responsible for the routine economic affairs if the community…The double nature of
what may be called the ‘capitalist spirit’, and the specific character of modern routinized
capitalism with its professional bureaucracy can be understood only if these two
structural elements, which are ultimately different but everywhere intertwined , are
conceptually distinguished,” (1978, p. 1118).

Building on the preceding discussion, we propose:

Proposition 1a: The interplay of the emergent informal charisma and formal

bureaucratic structure permeates the context of organizations.

 When considering the role of charisma in inciting change in organizations, Weber’s

writings and contemporary charismatic leadership research offer divergent views. Contemporary

charismatic leadership research emphasizes the importance of formal leaders in guiding

organizational change (Bass and Bass, 2008; Gilley et al., 2009; Waldman et al., 2004). Weber

acknowledges the formal structure as a revolutionary organizational force when necessary.

However, Weber argues that charisma emerging in the informal structure of the organization is

an important catalyst to organizational change. As such, charismatic leadership exists outside the

formal bureaucracy, and emerges in the informal structure. Thus, any attempt at institutionalizing

charisma in the formal, bureaucratic structure minimizes the charismatic essence of the bearer.

Thus, we propose:

Proposition 1b: Charismatic leadership originates within the informal organizational

structure and drives change from within the organization.

The question following: Understanding the power of followers

Weber (1978) was explicit in his argument that charisma lies in the relationship between

followers and leaders. In particular, he gives power to followers to deprive the leader of charisma

by withdrawing their recognition. As he argues: “If those to whom he feels sent do not recognize

him, his claim collapses; if they recognize it, he is their master as long as he ‘proves’ himself,”

(p. 1113). Contemporary research in charismatic leadership recognizes the important role that

followers play in this relationship—from determining the nature of the relationship (Choi, 2006;

Shamir and Howell, 2005) to placing charisma within the followers’ attributions of leaders’

behaviors (Conger and Kanungo, 1987). However, Weber differs is his belief that followers are

instrumental in determining the charisma of the leader. Without the followers’ approval, the one

who claims to possess charisma is both deceptive and devoid of charisma. More specifically,
Weber argues that only through the approval of the ruled is charismatic leadership recognized.

Without it, “the master becomes a mere private person and if he claims to be more, a usurper

deserving of punishment,” (Weber, 1978, p. 1115). Although the source of the charismatic

leader’s power lies in unique individual qualities and exquisite abilities, followers in fact hold

the power to shape charisma of the leader.

Therefore, charismatic leadership is more than the attributions of followers. Charisma

should be seen as service to the ruled that can be rescinded at any moment. Whether through

emotional bond or persuasion, charisma is shaped by the relationship between leaders and

followers where followers may accept or reject charisma. To illustrate the relational nature of

charisma, Weber (1978) portrays it as emanating from a dynamic power negotiation between

leaders and followers in which the charismatic leader must repeatedly prove his power in action

and seduce people into believing in his divine abilities:

“The charismatic hero derives his authority not from an established order and enactments,
as if it were an official competence, and not from custom or feudal fealty, as under
patrimonialism. He gains and retains solely by proving his powers in practice…
Genuinely charismatic ruler who is responsible to the ruled-responsible, that is, to prove
that he himself is indeed the master willed by God,” (p. 1114).

Power, thus, becomes an important yet insufficiently explored aspect in charismatic leadership

research.

Furthermore, charisma is context sensitive as charismatic or “natural” leaders emerge in

times of great distress. This is because peaceful times demand rules and economic behavior

satisfied by the formal bureaucratic structure. As such, the perfect storm of follower needs,

characteristics, actions, and contextual contingencies give rise in an unpredictable manner to

charismatic leadership. Further, these charismatic leaders exist only as long as they prove

exquisite abilities to the ruled. The specification of different types of followers or contexts as
often exemplified in contemporary research may prove fruitless here. Rather, a focus on the

process of how followers determine, give, and rescind charismatic leadership in the organization

should be embraced and further explored. Building on this discussion, we argue that charisma is

dynamic and exists within a contextually sensitive relationship between the leader and followers.

Thus, we propose:

Proposition 2: Charismatic leadership exists in a dynamic power relation between

leaders and followers where charisma is continuously negotiated.

The question of time: Understanding the temporal context

The temporal element of charisma in organizations is neglected in contemporary

research. It is widely assumed that charismatic leadership either exists or not, and that if it does

exist, it can be objectively measured at any point in time. Whereas some effort has been put forth

to identify charismatic behaviors as developable, as well as recognition that crises may add to the

development or perception of charisma in leaders (Bligh, et al., 2004), the assumption remains

that once charisma is developed, it persists. Weber, however, adopts the idea that charisma

emerges and dissipates with the passage of time. As he explains: “Every charisma is on the road

from a turbulent emotional life that knows no economic rationality to a slow death by suffocation

under the weight of material interests: every hour of its existence brings it nearer to this end,”

(1978, p. 1120). Weber emphasizes the temporal nature of charisma to accentuate its inherent

instability. More specifically, as charismatic leadership flows from the exquisite abilities of the

leader, leaders need to continually prove those abilities to keep charisma alive. Once the

followers rescind their devotion, or show disbelief in those abilities, charisma will vanish. Thus,

understanding the process of emergence of charisma in leaders, and how charisma emerges and
dissolves over time, is a fruitful opportunity for future research. Building on these arguments, we

propose that:

Proposition 3: Charismatic leadership is temporally bound, where every hour of its

existence brings it closer to its end.

Discussion

In looking to the past to learn about the future, our primary purpose in this paper is to

advance our understanding of charismatic leadership in organizations. By reviewing Weber’s

conceptualization alongside contemporary research, we make explicit three important, yet

unanswered questions in charismatic leadership research. In this section we build on our

historical findings with regards to the three remaining questions in order to provide conceptual

and methodological implications of our work, and suggest several alternative avenues for future

research.

Conceptual implications

Revisiting Weber’s writings have several important conceptual implications for future

research. Thus far, research in charismatic leadership has predominately focused on the

exploration of charisma within formal organizational roles. Additionally, while the role of

followers in the emergence of charisma has been recognized, the power that followers hold in

this relationship is underplayed. Furthermore, the unstable and dynamic nature of charisma has

not received notable attention (Bryman, 1993). By looking to the past, we are in a position to

learn, discover, and chart new opportunities for future charismatic leadership research.

However, the questions we raise demand a considerable conceptual shift in the way

leadership is viewed. As such, it deems important to consider theoretical frameworks and

philosophical views that may enable us to address these questions more appropriately. We
believe that complexity leadership theory (CLT) (Uhl-Bien and Marion, 2009; Uhl-Bien et al.,

2007) may offer a fruitful framework for analysis of Weber’s ideas and correspondingly advance

contemporary charismatic leadership research. Traditional assumptions of leadership are

grounded in hierarchy and authority. However, CLT views leadership as generated by

interactions of informal (adaptive) leaders operating alongside formal managerial

(administrative) leaders (Marion and Uhl-Bien, 2001; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007).

The main focus of CLT is the interplay of managerial (bureaucratic) and adaptive

(charismatic) leadership to maintain viability in times of uncertainty and distress. Thus, within

CLT, bureaucracy is necessary to drive organizational efficiency. Yet, at the same time, the

emergent, temporally sensitive social construction of leaders is equally important. Adaptive

leadership emphasizes how leaders and followers redefine their roles, fulfill their own goals, or

pursue a distributed pattern of influence (Hunt and Ropo, 1995; Uhl-Bien and Marion, 2009).

CLT focuses on adaptive leadership and the interplay of formal and informal leadership

structures in organizations operating in a state of distress. Thus, CLT may offer an appropriate

conceptual rationale for advancing Weber’s insight and with it, contemporary charismatic

leadership research.

Methodological implications

This paper also offers methodological implications that should be explored further by

researchers interested in charismatic leadership. In the extant literature, the description and

analysis of the interactive dynamic processes that comprise most organizational phenomena,

such as charismatic leadership, have been a challenge for many organizational scholars. Perhaps

the main obstacles are an incomplete understanding of the nature of the complexities comprising

leadership processes in organizations and a limited capability of traditional empirical methods to

capture these complexities. Therefore, longitudinal methodologies may be a more useful way to

capture charisma in organizations and show the process behind its existence from origin to

demise.

To more completely capture the emergent and unstable nature of charisma in

organizations, in addition to more traditional longitudinal quantitative methods such as repeated

measures and time series designs (Ployhart and Vandenberg 2010), we suggest that qualitative

methods may be particularly useful. Process data are inherently messy and difficult to collect.

Yet, Langley (1999) suggests that qualitative methodologies may offer greater opportunities for

capturing process data in their entirety. For example, ethnographic approaches may be a useful

methodology for capturing the dynamic nature of charisma in organizations.

Though ethnography has traditionally been reserved for anthropology, methodologists

have advocated for its use to understand organizational processes. Ethnography is a method of

extended observations of groups in which the researcher is immersed in and observes the day-to-

day lives of the participants, and conducts interviews (Wolcott, 2008). In referencing

ethnographic methods, Watson (2011, p. 204) argues that “we cannot really learn a lot about

what ‘actually happens’ or about ‘how things work’ in organizations without doing the intensive

type of close-observational or participative research that is central to ethnographic endeavor.”

Ethnography allows researchers to adopt an emic perspective of the organizational context. In

doing so, researchers can explicate dynamic, emergent processes, such as charismatic leadership,

in a holistic and reflexive manner (Richards and Morse, 2007; Walcott, 2008). Thus, we suggest

that ethnography is a useful method for researching charisma from a processual perspective. To

this end, researchers can refocus their methodological efforts from validating predetermined
theories and measures toward a more inductive approach to discover the complexities inherent in

charismatic leadership.

Future directions

Building on our discussion, we suggest several avenues for future research. Firstly,

researchers in charismatic leadership could benefit from moving away from traditional

managerial leadership and exploring charisma within informal organizational structures. For

example, once we move away from agency and control emphasized within managerial leadership

and step into the dynamism of the informal context, how does the nature of leadership change?

How may this informal leadership constrain or alternatively facilitate actions of formal leaders?

This endeavor may highlight the actions and events that comprise change processes within

organizations, as well as failures of formal managerial structures to drive change. This approach

may also enlighten the processes that drive successful idea implementation, emergent

innovations and strategy formulation, as well as adaptive processes and learning in organizations.

Charismatic leadership operating outside the traditional formal bureaucracy may prove to be a

missing link in both the leadership and change management literatures.

Secondly, further exploration of adaptive dynamics that give rise to charismatic

leadership adds to our understanding of how formal managerial structures may enable

charismatic leadership and foster conditions for its existence. Contemporary research does not

fully recognize the role of followers in charismatic leadership emergence. Nor does it recognize

the importance of relationships and networks in the process. Therefore, it is important to explore

the process of relational construction and role negotiation that ultimately enable the emergence

of charisma to occur. In other words, how do actors in organizational relationships define

charisma within the informal structure? Addressing these questions may increase our knowledge
of how charisma emerges within adaptive processes, as well as how adaptive processes are

maintained in organizations.

Finally, time in organizational research in general, and leadership research in particular,

should be more strongly emphasized. Normal organizational life has evolved into one of

instability, impermanence, and unpredictability. As a result, incorporating temporal elements in

management and leadership research can inform the instability, impermanence, and

unpredictability of organizations. As a corollary, research on charisma in organizations should

incorporate time and the temporal instability of charisma to capture the process that constitutes

its existence. Weber was specific in his discussion that charisma is inherently unstable, and with

every minute, approaches its own demise. Contemporary research is yet to capture the

temporally unstable nature of charismatic leadership—a future research avenue that permeates

all others and with it, we believe, the most promise. Therefore, research questions aimed at

understanding how the nature of charisma changes with the passage of time should be addressed

both theoretically and empirically.

Conclusion

Revisiting Weber’s writings on charismatic leadership provide fruitful avenues for

contemporary research on the role, nature, and impact of charismatic leadership on

organizational relationships and performance. Yet, to date, other facets of Weber’s work have

been overlooked. We argue that attempts to propel contemporary charismatic leadership research

forward require learning from the past. That is, incorporating original insights by Weber on

charisma may broaden and shape the future directions of contemporary charismatic leadership

research. Though we suggest fruitful avenues for future research, such as investigating the

informal structure as a context for the emergence of charisma, the power of followers to shape
charisma in leaders, and the temporally bound nature of charisma, other avenues may exist. In

looking to the past of charisma in particular and leadership in general, current researchers can

build on this groundwork to find unique, open-ended avenues for future research.

References

Antonakis, J. and Atwater, L. (2002), “Leader distance: a review and a proposed theory”, The

Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13, pp. 673-704.

Antonakis, J. and House, R.J. (2002). “An analysis of the full-range leadership theory: The way

forward”. In B.J. Avolio and F.J. Yammarino (Eds.) Transformational and Charismatic

Leadership: The Road Ahead (pp. 3-24). Amsterdam: JAI Press.

Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J. and Sivasubramaniam, S. (2003). “Context and leadership: an

examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14, pp. 261-295.

Avolio, B. J. and Bass, B. M. (1985), “Charisma and beyond”, paper presented at the annual

meeting of the Academy of Management, San Diego, CA.

Bass, B. M. (1985), Leadership performance beyond expectations, Academic Press, New York,

NY.

Bass, B.M (1988), Evolving perspectives on charismatic leadership. In Conger, J.A. and

Kanungo, R.N. (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational

effectiveness, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 40-77.

Bass, B.M. and Bass, R. (2008), Handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and application,

Free Press, New York, NY.

Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C. and Meindl, J. R. (2004), “Charisma under crisis: Presidential

leadership, rhetoric, and media responses before and after the September 11th terrorist

attacks”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15, pp. 211-239.

Brown, S. L. and Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997), “The art of continuous change: Linking complexity

theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations”, Administrative

Science Quarterly, Vol. 42, pp. 1-34.

Bryman, A. (1993), “Charismatic leadership in business organizations: Some neglected issues”,

The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 4, pp. 289-304.

Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper and Row, New York, NY.

Choi, J. (2006), “A motivational theory of charismatic leadership: Envisioning, empathy, and

empowerment”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 13 pp. 24-43.

Conger, J. A. (1999) “Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider’s

perspective on these developing streams of research”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10,

pp. 145-179.

Conger, J. A. and Kanungo, R. N. (1987), “Toward a Behavioral Theory of Charismatic

Leadership in Organizational Settings”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12, pp.

637-647.

Courpasson, D., Golsorkhi, D. and Sallaz, J. J. (Eds.). (2012), Rethinking power in

organizations, institutions, and markets (Vol. 34), Emerald Group Publishing Limited,

Bingley, UK.

DeGroot, T., Kiker, D. S. and Cross, T. C. (2000), “A Meta-analysis to review organizational

outcomes related to charismatic leadership”, Canadian Journal of Administrative

Sciences Vol. 17, pp. 356-371.

Ehrhart, M. G. and Klein, K. J. (2001), “Predicting followers' preferences for charismatic

leadership: The influence of follower values and personality”, The Leadership Quarterly,

Vol. 12, pp. 153-179.

Eisenstadt, S. N. (1968), Max Weber: On charisma and institution building, University of

Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Erez, A., Misangyi, V. F., Johnson, D. E., LePine, M. A. and Halverson, K. C. (2008), “Stirring

the hearts of followers: Charismatic leadership as the transferal of affect”, Journal of

Applied Psychology, Vol. 93, pp. 602-616.

Giddens, A. (1984), The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structure, University of

California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Gilley, A., McMillan, H. S. and Gilley, J. W. (2009), “Organizational change and characteristics

of leadership effectiveness”, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 16,

pp. 38-47.

Graen, G. B. and Uhl-Bien, M. (1995), “Relationship-based approach to leadership:

Development of leader-member exchange LMX theory of leadership over 25 years:

Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 62,

pp. 219-247.

Greenfeld, L. (1985), “Reflections on two charismas”, The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 36,

pp. 117–132.

Hannan, M. T. and Freeman, J. (1984), “Structural inertia and organizational change”, American

Sociological Review, Vol. 49, pp. 149-164.

Hartley, N. T. (2006), “Management history: an umbrella model”, Journal of Management

History, Vol. 12, pp. 278-292.

Hollander, E. P. (1993), “Legitimacy, power, and influence: A perspective on relational features

of leadership”, In Chemers, M. M. and Ayman, R. (Eds)., Leadership theory and

research: Perspectives and directions, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 29-47.

Houghton, J. D. (2010), “Does Max Weber's notion of authority still hold in the twenty-first

century?”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 16, pp. 449-453.

House, R. J. (1985), “Research contrasting the behavior and effects of reputed charismatic versus

reputed noncharismatic”, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Administrative

Science Association, Montreal, CA.

House, R. J. and Baetz, M. L. (1979), “Leadership: Some empirical generalizations and new

research directions”, in Staw, B. M. (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 1,

JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 399-401.

House, R. J. and Shamir, B. (1993), “Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic,

and visionary theories”, In Chemers M. M. and Ayman, R. (Eds.), Leadership theory and

research: Perspectives and directions, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 81-107.

House, R.J. (1971), “A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness”, Administrative Science

Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp. 321-338.

Howell, J. M. and Shamir, B. (2005), “The role of followers in the charismatic leadership

process: Relationships and their consequences”, Academy of Management Review, Vol.

30, pp. 96-112.

Hunt, J. G. and Ropo, A. (1995), “Multi-level leadership: Grounded theory and mainstream

theory applied to the case of general motors”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6, pp. 379-

412.
Jermier, J. M. (1998). Introduction: Critical Perspectives on Organizational Control.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(2), 235-256.

Katz, D. and Kahn, R. L. (1978), The social psychology of organizations, Wiley, New York, NY.

Kirkpatrick, S. A. and Locke, E. A. (1996), “Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic

leadership components on performance and attitudes”, Journal of Applied Psychology,

Vol. 81, pp. 36-51.

Klein, K. J. and House, R. J. (1995), “On fire: Charismatic leadership and levels of analysis”,

The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6, pp. 183-198.

Lamond, D. (2006), “Management and its history: the worthy endeavour of the scribe”, Journal

of Management History, Vol. 12, pp. 5-11.

Langley, A. (1999), “Strategies for theorizing from process data”, Academy of Management

Review, Vol. 4, pp. 691-710.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996), “Effectiveness correlates of

transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the mlq

literature”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7, pp. 385-425.

Marion, R. and Uhl-Bien, M. (2001), “Leadership in complex organizations”, The Leadership

Quarterly, Vol. 12, pp. 389-418.

Meyer, J. W. and Rowan, B. (1977), “Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth

and ceremony”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83, pp. 340-363.

Mintzberg, H., Lampel, J. and Ahlstrand, B. (2005), Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour Through

The Wilds of Strategic Management, Free Press, New York, NY.

Pindur, W., Rogers, S. E., & Kim, P. S. (1995), “The history of management: a global

perspective”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 1, pp. 59-77.

Ployhart, R. E. and Vandenberg, R. J. (2010), “Longitudinal research: The theory, design, and

analysis of change”, Journal of Management, Vol. 36, pp. 94-120.

Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R. and Turner, C. (1968), “Dimensions of organization

structure”, Administrative science quarterly, Vol. 13, pp. 65-105.

Richards, L. and Morse, J.M. (2007), Users guide for qualitative methods (2nd ed.), Sage,

Thousand Oaks, CA.

Selznick, P. (1948), “Foundations of the theory of organization”, American Sociological Review,

Vol. 13, pp. 25-35.

Suchman, M. C. (1995), “Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches”,

Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 571-610.

Thompson, J. D. (1967), Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory,

McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Udy, S. H. (1962), “Administrative rationality, social setting, and organizational development”,

American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 68, pp. 299-308.

Uhl-Bien, M. (2006), “Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership

and organizing”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 654-676.

Uhl-Bien, M. and Marion, R. (2009), “Complexity leadership in bureaucratic forms of

organizing: A meso model”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20, pp. 631-650.

Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R. and McKelvey, B. (2007), “Complexity leadership theory: Shifting

leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol.

18, pp. 298-318.

Uhl-Bien, M., and Ospina, S. M. (2012), Advancing relational leadership research: A dialogue

among perspectives, Information Age Pub Incorporated, Charlotte, NC.

Waldman, D. A., Javidan, M. and Varella, P. (2004), “Charismatic leadership at the strategic

level: A new application of upper echelons theory”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15,

pp. 355-380.

Watson, T. J. (2011), “Ethnography, reality, and truth: The vital need for studies of ‘how things

work’ in organizations and management”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 48, pp.

202-217.

Weber, M. (1947), The theory of social and economic organization, Oxford University Press,

New York, NY.

Weber. M. (1978), Economy and society, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Wolcott, H.F. (2008), Ethnography: A way of seeing, AltaMira Press, Landham, MA.

Yagil, D. (1998), “Charismatic leadership and organizational hierarchy: Attribution of charisma

to close and distant leaders”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 9, pp. 161-176.

Yukl, G. (1999), “An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic

leadership theories”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10, pp. 285-305.

Yukl, G. A. and Van Fleet, D. D. (1982), “Cross-situational, multimethod research on military

leader effectiveness”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 30, pp.

87-108.
 Table 1.
Charismatic Leadership as Conceptualized by Weber and Contemporary Research

Weber’s Supporting Evidence Contemporary Supporting Evidence

Conceptualization Research
View of Charisma is a fluid, “In moments of distress – whether Charisma is an Characteristics of charismatic leaders may
Charisma in supernatural power psychic, physical, economic, ethical, individual include:
Leaders emerging in times of religious, or political – where neither characteristic  vision or appealing ideological goals
distress appointed officeholders nor  ability to build confidence in others
professionals in the present day sense,  ability to inspire
but rather the bearers of specific gifts of  need to influence unconventional
body and mind that were considered behavior (Avolio and Bass, 1985; Bass,
supernatural,” (Weber, 1978, p. 1112) 1985; Yukl and Van Fleet, 1982)
The Charisma exists in the Charisma emerges suddenly outside the Charisma exists in Charisma is examined in formally appointed
organizational informal organizational traditional structure, lives briefly though the formal, leaders of organizations (Conger and
context structure the power struggle embedded in the set bureaucratic Kanungo, 1987; House, 1985; Waldman, et
of relationships, and disappears equally structure al., 2004)
sudden when the recognition is removed
or when it is transforms into a formal
rule nested within a traditional
bureaucracy (Weber, 1978; Katz and
Kahn, 1966)
The power of Charisma exists within Charisma is embedded in an array of Followers are Leaders and followers must share basic
followers emotional power social relationships, fuelled by emotion, recognized as beliefs and values for charismatic leadership
relations between power struggles and often frantic important to exist. As such, different characteristics of
leaders and followers commitment (Weber, 1978) contributors to the followers are identified as more or less
manifestation of conducive to charisma (Ehrhart and Klein,
charisma 2001; House and Beatz, 1979; Howell and
Shamir, 2005)
The temporal Charisma is Charisma is born in recognition of the Charisma is a Charisma is a stable characteristic of
context processual—it emerges ruled during crises or times of distress. permanent individuals who either possess charisma, or
and dissipates with the As such, it dies once that recognition is characteristic of an do not (Avolio and Bass, 1985; Bass and
passage of time lost (Weber, 1978) individual Bass, 2008)