The contingency or situational approach moves away from the concepts of behaviour and traits and towards a fit between the leaders style and the given situation. Consequently, it is possible that a leaders behaviour is very effective in one situation, but highly ineffective in another configuration. (e.g.: A leader who is well in change management, won’t be suitable for stable situations, where “mechanised” management is required) Therefore the leader has to be able to recognise the characteristics of a situation and adapt his or her behaviour according to the requirements of the situation. Hersey and Blancard (1977), strictly rejected the “one best way” idea, based on the fact that satisfied groups and high productivity can be seen under any kind of leadership. Instead their position was that, “The more managers adapt their style of leader behaviour to meet the particular situation and the needs of their followers, the more effective they will be in reaching personal and organisational goals”. Further they argue that the leader has to focus on their subordinates needs and their maturity. This is opposed to Fieldler’s theory that grgues that the leader must find situation which suits their specific style. And to Vroom who postulates that the task of the leader is to find situations which fit their personal style. (Schein, 1992)
The relatively new concept of charismatic leadership is based on the belief that the leader can broaden the awareness and interest of his/her followers. Consequently, the aims of the leader are of greater importance and are placed prior to the personal goals. Steers (1996) defines charismatic leadership as “a special quality that enables the leader to mobilise and sustain activity within an organisation through specific personal actions combined with perceived characteristics”. According to Bass (1985) employees are motivated by charisma beyond their original expectations. This is done in three ways, awareness about certain key issues and processes are raised, organisational goals are placed above the own interests and adjusting the needs level, so they have a stronger drive for responsibility, challenge and personal growth. Nadlar and Tuschman (1989) summarised the mains ways of behaviour, that characterises charismatic leaders in three points. The first one is envisioning, which evolves articulating a compelling vision, setting high expectations and modelling consistent behaviours that symbolise and further that decision. The second point is energising, which is achieved by demonstrating personal excitement, expressing personal confidence and seeking, finding and using success, which in turn is transformed to the followers, The third point is enabling, which consists of expressing confidence in people. One example of charismatic leadership was Paul O’Neil at ALCOA, who had a clear vision compelling and central to the firm, set high expectations for his employees and continuously created vision and energy at ALCOA though meetings, task forces, video tapes and extensive personal contact. (Nadler and Thrushman 1989).
In order to assess if there was a significant development in the field, through the introduction of charismatic leadership to the leadership theory the context of the area has to be explained.
In the 1970’s and 1980’s, mainly in the US and UK, there was a new culture emerging, with the enterprises culture focusing on the customer rather than on the product. The belief was that an organisation could best serve its own profitability and long term health by providing a better service to the customer than the competing companies. There was a focus upon individualism, which was spreading throughout culture and mostly termed as “Thatcherism”. The shift was away from big government and about being independent and your own person. In 1982, Thomas J. Peters and Robert H Waterman brought out a book called “In search for excellence”, giving a recipe on how to be successful, by examining 43 of the most successful US companies and then writing down their common characteristics. Then everyone could become a leader, he/she just needs to know how, which further increased the fascination for leadership and leaders who knew how to excel and get things done. However, there were also some uncertainties regarding the future as the economy was doing badly in the early 1980’s. Firms were rationalising and the new “enterprise culture”, blurred the picture of what exactly had to be done; as Arthur Martinez CEO of Sears pointed out “when you had command and control environments, everyone knew his/her role and execute his/her boss’s program”. Moreover, Bryman argued “..there was considerable disillusionment with the leadership theory and research in the early 1980’s. Out of this pessimism emerged a number of alternative approaches”, with most having a central focus on charisma. All these implied that the significance of charismatic leadership has been limited, as it is just the formulisation of the current culture The fascination with the charismatic leadership came from the fact that it was within everybody, but was not termed. Furthermore, a charismatic leader was the answer to lead the people back in certainty.
Gemmill and Oakley (1992) argue that leadership itself can be seen as “an alienating social myth” In that case leadership stands for the wish to return to the foetal status and give up all responsibilities. Leadership is seen as the substitute of the womb, where one is protected from the outside environment, freed from all tasks, no risks have to be taken, the conscious is free and the mind is empty. In this context leadership stands for nothing else, but the repressed wish to stay infantile. Leaders are therefore created through the none-fulfilment of repressed wishes; hence in this context leadership is a significant development.
Another aspect, that would limit the significance of charismatic leadership, lies in the development of the leadership theory and the research in the trait approach. If charismatic leadership is incorporated into the trait approach, then the result would be that there was no development in the field. Charisma would simply be seen as another trait, just like intelligence, height or social class. Hence this would imply that there was no new theory at all, and that nothing can be done in order to train or learn these abilities
A further argument against the newness of the ideas in the charismatic leadership theory is, that the charismatic leadership theory was nothing else but the “capturing the mood” of the time and writing it down on paper. This can be seen in relationship of the above mentioned argument of Bryman, that a lot on new leadership theory contains charisma, but it is not mentioned explicitly
Also in relation to Tolstoy , who introduced the theory of cause and effect, the significance of the theory is reduced. Tolstoy basically says, that the world is far to complex to be fully grasped by the human mind. Therefore people pinpoint certain events in order to make the world understandable. This would imply that the charismatic leadership theory is highly overvalued, since it is very simplistic.
On the other hand if the charismatic leadership theory is seen in the context of the behavioural approach, then it clearly is a significant development in the field. In the light of globalisation, increased international competitiveness and ever changing business conditions it is essential for most companies to have a charismatic leader, as only a firm who can excel and work at its best will survive in the long run. Without constant innovation, creativity and hard work, a firm will find it extremely hard to find any place in the market. This however, does not apply to all sectors and is specifically aimed at the new economy. Moreover, charismatic leadership, seen in the context of the behavioural approach, will imply that charismatic leadership is something on can learn and apply.
A further point, which emphasis the significance of charismatic leadership to the field, is the fascination it created and the size of the response to it. It changed the context in which leadership is talked about. It also was put in place as the major theory in the leadership study. Therefore, if the charismatic leadership would not have been introduced then people like Gemmill and Oakley might have never challenged the idea of leadership.
Another strength of the theory is pointed out by Grint (2000) arguing it does not introduce quantifiable factors, hence it cannot been treated as a rigid science, such as Mathematics. Grint says that leadership “..is essential an interpretative affair, it casts doubt upon those claiming scientific legitimations for their claims and buttresses an approach to leadership that firmly within the arts not the sciences. In effect, I am suggesting here that one of the reasons that we have so much difficulty in explaining leadership and trying to enhance the leadership qualities and skills of those who are leaders, is that we have to adopt a philosophical perspective that obscures rather than illuminates the phenomenon. In other words, the more “scientific” our methods of analysis become, the less likely we are to understand leadership because it is not accessible to scientific approaches”.7 Taking this statement into considerations, it is clear that the charismatic leadership approach is a significant development, since it does not try to quantify.
To conclude, it is not my belief that it was a significant development in understanding the topic, although it was certainly a step in the right direction. By this I mean that it “broke down” the walls which were built by the other models and therefore facilitated us to do a “broader thinking” by introducing a new factor, and also taking the subordinates or followers into account . But since the world is not simple to understand and cannot be fully explained via looking at a few variables, there is a need for a more complex approach.
Bibliography:
A. Bryman, 1992, Charisma and Leadership in Organisations, Sage
K. Grint , 2000, The Art of Leadeship, Oxford University Press, p2
E. Schein, 1992, Organizational Psychology, Sage, p124
R. Steers, 1996, Motivation and Leadership at work, McGraw-Hill, p693
A. Bryman, 1992, Charisma and Leadership in Organisations, Newbury Park. C.A. Sage Publication
R. Steers, 1996, Motivation and Leadership at work, McGraw Hill, p260
K. Grint (2000), The Art of Leadership, Oxford, Univeristy Press, p 4
Course-reader and Lecture notes
A. Bryman, 1992, Charisma and Leadership in Organisations, Sage
K. Grint , 2000, The Art of Leadeship, OxfordUniversity Press, p2
E. Schein, 1992, Organizational Psychology, Sage, p124
R. Steers, 1996, Motivation and Leadership at work, McGraw-Hill, p693
A. Bryman, 1992, Charisma and Leadership in Organisations, Newbury Park. C.A. Sage Publications
R. Steers, 1996, Motivation and Leadership at work, McGraw Hill, p260
K. Grint (2000), The Art of Leadership, Oxford, Univeristy Press, p 4
