tf views

Transformational Leadership and Mutuality

Mary Miller
Dr Mary Miller is a member of the board of Jubilee Campaign, USA, and President of Women Mentoring at Work, a non-profit organization for women in the workplace.

Abstract
What does leadership research and literature have to say about the mutuality of transforming leaders, and is being transforming synonymous with being charismatic? Transforming leadership and charismatic leadership are two distinct and different theories in the field of leadership research, so understanding the distinctive between these theories is essential. Importantly, the definition of charismatic leaders within a church context is completely different from use of the term within leadership research. The discussion thus identifies the conceptual basis for the term charismatic leadership within leadership research. The conceptual basis of transforming leadership within theory provides a frame from which mutuality between the leader and others can be understood.

Introduction
There is tremendous relevance and importance in identifying the influence processes used in mutuality by transforming (transformational) leaders in their interpersonal approach towards others; that is, within the dyad relationship between the leader and their respective employees, colleagues, bosses, followers, etc.When a leader is intentionally transformational, there are specific behaviours that evidence mutuality in the interpersonal relationship between the leader and others. Understanding these behaviours, known as influence processes, provides leaders who are seeking to be transformational in their interpersonal approach towards others with valuable insight into their own behaviour; as well as providing followers with far greater understanding of their leader. In order to discuss the mutuality between transformational leadership and others, first the conceptual basis of transformational leadership must be provided. The conceptual basis for describing and defining transforming leaders provides the basis for the discussion of mutuality.The major point of clarification in conceptualizing of transforming leadership is to distinguish between transforming leadership and charismatic leadership, differentiating the leaders focus, goals, and process. The discussion to follow will aim to bring
180 Transformation 24/3 & 4 July & October 2007

clarification between charismatic leadership and transforming leadership by specifically addressing differences in the respective leaders self-perceptions and persona, which is how the leader presents her/himself to others. Understanding the self-perception of the leader will be shown to have been provided by understanding the different influence processes the leader evidences towards the follower. The identification of influence processes leads to identifying and understanding mutuality in transforming leaders interpersonal relationship with others. Briefly, an overview is provided of how the field of leadership theorists perceive charismatic leadership in order to draw to the readers attention the negative perceptions that are increasingly and often associated with the use of the term charismatic leadership within leadership research. Consequently, use of the term charismatic leadership without a detailed qualification of what that term means can potentially be miscommunication to leadership theorists, as well as to the average reader. Terminology can not be presumed or dismissed.

Charismatic Leadership versus Transforming Leadership

The research literature has not reached agreeTranSformaTional leaderShiP and muTualiTy

tf views
ment on the differences between the charismatic and transforming leadership paradigms.A number of researchers have lumped charismatic with transformational leadership (Behling & McFillen, 1996; Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Pielstick, 1998; Fiol et al, 1999; Den Hartog et al., 1999). Others have focused on transformational leadership as a unique paradigm in its own right (Burns, 1978; Shamir, 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1997; Conger, 1999; Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2001). Hunt and Congers assessment of the field, in their researching charismatic and transforming leadership, conclude that,there needs to be more differentiation than there has typically been in the use of the two terms (Hunt & Conger, 1999, p. 340). Recent analysis chronicling the history of research on transforming and charismatic leaders by Conger (1999) who originally lumped charismatic with transforming leaders allows for the two paradigms of transformation and charisma as having significant differences, and consequently identified as being two separate theories. Conger notes that the differences are in the influence process. The influence process has a great deal to do with the persona, from which self-concept and self-identity emerge with potentially significantly different goals being valued by the leader. Some of the reasoning for researching transformational leaders as a distinct paradigm centres on the idea that transformational leaders have different expressions of persona than charismatic leader. An individuals persona is the public representation of the identity of self, our,psychological skin (Jones & Butman, 1991, p. 123). The definition of persona is linked to the self-concept of the individual, and thus can be paralleled to the personal constructs1 of the person, rather than the archetypal representation that is sometimes associated with use of this term. The differences of persona is a seminal distinctive between transformational and charismatic leadership, indicating that the two theories are distinct paradigms. If the persona of the two leadership approaches is different, then the values and behaviour will also reflect differences. There will a difference in focus, and a difference in process; consequently, there will be a difference of influence process towards followers. borrowing of the term charisma from the New Testament, where it is referred to as an impartation of the Holy Spirit as a gift from God as individuals committed their lives to Jesus (Bryman, 1992).2 Weber took the concept of charisma and applied this to some leaders within society outside of the church. He coined the term charismatic leadership and gave it a multi-dimensional, somewhat confusing and contradictory meaning, both good and bad (Bryman, 1992). While appreciating Webers substantive contribution to sociology, his theorizing on charismatic leadership has not been clearly understood by many leadership theorists (Bryman, 1992). Commentators on and users of Webers writings on charisma have invariably disagreed wildly over the meaning, content and potential of the concept. This tendency can be attributed largely to the nature of Webers writings on the subject.They are highly diffuse, sometimes contradictory, and often more suggestive of what is interesting and important in charisma than a definitive exposition. Indeed, if there is one thing over which writers on charisma tend to agree, it is that Weber provided a highly stimulating but frustratingly abstruse discussion (Bryman, 1992, p. 23). Weber described charismatic leaders as representing themselves endowed with special power, but essentially an unstable force that emerged in times of stress. Swindlers study of charismatic leaders showed the need for the charismatic leader to engage in, exaggerated personal eccentricities, and worked to appear unpredictable and mysterious (Bryman, 1992 citing Swindler, 1979, p. 76). From the idea of being endowed by God with special talent, as it was originally understood from the Bible, the emerging conceptualizing of the charismatic leader was identified as one who took it upon him or herself to convince others that their talents were indeed supernatural in some way.

Influence Process of Charismatic Leadership

There is agreement in the literature concerning one specific aspect in how charismatic leadership is defined; specifically, on the importance of the aspect of the persona of the charismatic leader being larger then life, as originally suggested by Weber in much of the literature (Weber, 1947;
Transformation 24/3 & 4 July & October 2007 181

Charismatic Leadership: Weber

The theory of charismatic leadership that emerged last century (1900s) came from Webers (1947)
TranSformaTional leaderShiP and muTualiTy

tf views
Bryman, 1992; House, 1995; Sosik & Dworakiovsky, 1998; Conger, 1999; Jacobsen, 2001). Charismatic leader takes time to enhance how they are perceived so they receive recognition from followers. This is because the charismatic leader is seeking for an emotional appeal, so his or her aura is the deciding factor of being a charismatic leader (Weber, 1947; House, 1977; Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Behling & McFillen, 1996; Shamir, 1998; Grint, 2002). It is through and from the use of emphasizing their personhood and their gifts that the charismatic leader has impact on the follower. Conger & Kanungo (1988) link attribution theory with charismatic leadership, which indicates the paradigm of charismatic leadership, according to Conger, is one of perception of the follower. There is ongoing discussion regarding the leader having actual (genuine) or attributed qualities or a mixture of both (Beyer, 1999). Conger (1999) outlines the four motivational outcomes from the changes in followers self-concepts. These include the way the follower perceives work, vision, identity with others, and sense of collective. Argyle and Colman (1999) describe charismatic leaders as those who form strong bonds emotionally with their followers, but they state that the way this bond is established has not been adequately addressed. The strong link with emotions suggests that attribution theory might be the link with charismatic leadership. Central to the definition of charismatic leadership is the perception that the leader is exceptional in some way, and the charismatic leader has the ability to make followers believe in them. The belief in the charismatic leader is the main means of impact and influence on the follower. The followers perception of influence processes differentiates between transforming and charismatic leadership. The follower will identify different processes, depending on the perceptions that come from leadership interaction, which are influence processes identified in specific behaviours. The follower will perceive the influence process as mainly one of charisma for the charismatic leader. It is the followers belief in the leader because of the charisma of the leader that is the key dynamic of influence for the follower from the leader. The charismatic leaders focus is on their own abilities as a charismatic leader to formulate, articulate, and motivate followers to join with him or her in fulfilling the vision. This is not mutual
182 Transformation 24/3 & 4 July & October 2007

stimulation or elevation. It is stimulation of the follower and elevation of the leader. The follower is stimulated to help the charismatic leader with the vision that the charismatic leader is articulating. This can be diagrammed below: Diagram 2:1 Charismatic Leader
VISION ^ ^ ^ CHARISMATIC LEADER ^ ^ ^ FOLLOWER(S)

As detailed earlier, charismatic leaders articulate the vision and frame the perception that they want their followers to have in a carefully crafted manner, seeking to highlight themselves as extraordinary individuals. The leader uses this approach because the follower must go through the charismatic leader to have accurate perception of the vision, and trying to envision the follower is easier when the individual doing the envisioning has components that the follower is in awe of. Here the onus is on the leader to appear and perform in such a way that the follower joins the charismatic leaders vision. Conger identifies his own model as coming, closest to the Webers original assertions (1947) (Conger, 1999, p. 155), and recent theory using a dramaturgical model by Gardner and Avolio (1998) also point to charismatic leaders deliberately exaggerating their abilities and identity to impress their followers. Aspects of the persona of the charismatic leader are being researched to gain an understanding of how the process of charisma works within this leadership theory for both leader and follower. Gardner and Avolios theory use Schlenkers (1985) identity theory as a basis for identifying the leaders identity, high self-esteem, and self-monitoring as key components for the charismatic leader.This seems a very promising line of research in understanding charismatic leaders. The organizational behaviour literature describes charismatic leaders persona as possibly including elements of distance from followers, of achieving hero status, of narcissist personality
TranSformaTional leaderShiP and muTualiTy

tf views
tendencies, and possibly self-aggrandisement. The potentially and possibly inappropriately paternalistic and destructive self-power of the charismatic leader can have negative consequences in the life of the follower (Bryman, 1992). The power basis for the charismatic leader is described as, personal power (based on expert power; respect and admiration as a unique hero), with a resultant, reverence and trust (Conger & Kanungo, 1998, p. 51). The behaviours cited as charismatic by Conger and Kanungo include,passionate advocacy, unconventional means, strong inspirational future vision, placing the onus on the leader to stir others up as the means to attain the vision with resultant, reverence and trust for the leader (Conger & Kanungo, 1998, p. 50). the leader and follower dyad with the outcome of having specific influence processes used by the transforming leader. The clarification (of what influence processes are being used by the transforming leader) can receive some insight from theory that articulates the behaviours that are descriptive of influence processes that are used when a leader has an orientation to love as a power base. Bouldings (1989) theory of love as integrating power identifies the influence process used by leaders who use love as a power base. Because the influence processes identified by Boulding (1989) have concordance with Burnss definition, then these influence processes can be used to understand the influence processes of the transforming leader. The following discussion will briefly outline Bouldings (1989) identification of love as the basis for power, and will identify how Bouldings theorizing can be used to understand the outcome of mutuality and power sharing in the transforming leader and follower relationship, when understood from Burnss definition of transforming leadership. The implications from the discussion of mutuality and power sharing lead to a potential way to diagram the influence process (see Diagram 2) used by the transforming leader.

Transformational Leadership: Burns

There is agreement in the field that Burnss conceptualizing of transforming leadership was seminal in providing a framework for understanding transforming leaders. The transforming leader looks for potential motives in followers, seeks to satisfy higher needs, and engages the full person of the follower. The result of transforming leadership is a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents. (Burns, 1978, p. 4). The starting point for the research in understanding transforming leaders was Burnss (1978) in-depth historical analysis identifying transforming leaders as a unique phenomenon or theory within the field of leadership research. Burnss conceptualizing of transforming leaders thrust this paradigm into prominence. Burnss definition, quoted above, provides a definition from which transforming leaders behaviours and conceptualizations could be assessed.

Bouldings theory of Love

Boulding identifies specific types of power that are used by leaders within society, and identifies love as a type of power that is used by leaders. Bouldings theorizing centres on identifying differences in types of power, and he defines power as, in the human sense, power is a concept without meaning in the absence of human valuations and human decision . . .its widest meaning is that of a potential for change (Boulding, 1989, p. 15). It is evident that power can not exist in a vacuum, so power always has a value base, just as it is clear that leadership has an attendant power base. Boulding brought the two concepts together, and identified attendant power bases for leadership; one potential power basis of the leader being love. Boulding conceptualizes love as a form of power in a leader within an organization with a number of distinctive. Boulding points out that love is a form of power that integrates, and is the only form of power that is not abusive (Boulding, 1989). Boulding believed that a leader who operates out of a power base of love avoids the abusive elements that so often pervade power, and
Transformation 24/3 & 4 July & October 2007 183

Influence Process of Transforming Leadership

It is possible to understand inf luence process by identifying underlying processes that are being used. This section will identify how Bouldings (1989) theory of love has concordance with Burnss (1978) definition of love, and how this association points to love understood as a power basis being an underlying process in
TranSformaTional leaderShiP and muTualiTy

tf views
that love as a basis for leadership provides integration. Boulding states, the most fundamental form of integrative power is the power of love (Boulding, 1989, p. 110), and suggests,integrative power as the ultimate power (Boulding, 1989, p. 109). Boulding describes integrative power in a number of different ways in seeking to conceptualize how integration functions within an organization. Boulding identifies the structure of integrating power as a,complex network of communication and learning (Boulding, 1989, p. 117). He suggests that a reciprocal dynamic is an important aspect of integrative power; that integrative power is the enabling force within productive power in organizations. Boulding hypothesises that it might be possible to learn to have integrative power. This would involve willingness on the part of the leader to learn to institute processes that would enable reciprocity between others and him/herself. He states that this integration, specific actions by the leader, is the key to success within organizations because these actions enable the individual to have a personal identity within the organization (Boulding, 1989, p. 61). Importantly, he does not identify the leader being the one with which the individual must have a personal identity. Integration is the space that is held open for the individual to form their own identity with the organization, in whatever shape or form is important to the individual. Bouldings concept of love as a basis of power is tangible, not emotive, although undoubtedly there will always be an emotive element associated with love. Boulding is describing love as action in identifying that love is not abusive, and that love as a power base integrates. The definition Burns gives of transforming leadership fit the descriptors of Bouldings nonabusive and integrative power. There are strong indicators that Burnss definition alludes to the power base of the transformational leader potentially being identified as love. Burnss (1978) definition does not state the motivation or the basis of leadership, but the leaders influence process is; satisfying higher needs, mutual stimulation and elevation of followers (Burns, 1978). The use of power for the transforming leader is not reverence for the leader, but the aforementioned space is held open for the follower to form a personal identity within the organization in a non-abusive manner. The specific behaviours that are used include elevation of the follower and mutual stim184 Transformation 24/3 & 4 July & October 2007

ulation. In Burnss articulation of transformational leadership, the value base within the power base has positive impact on individuals and community (Burns, 1978), because the outcomes of the leaders input to the follower has positive consequences in the life of the follower. All of these points identify Burnss definition being a fit with Bouldings descriptors of a power base of love for the leader. Bouldings theorizing might provide additional understanding for distinguishing between charismatic and transformational leadership. If love understood as a power base is foundational in the transforming leader, then there will be a large difference between the charismatic leader, as defined in organizational behaviour literature, and transformational leaders.

Outcomes: Mutuality and Power Sharing

Burnss definition describes transformational leaders elevating followers in the process or as a process of enacting vision. The transforming leader empowers, but Burnss definition also alludes to a mutual stimulation that elevates both follower and the leader. The aspect of mutual stimulation can be seen as the mutuality of the leader and follower relationship. Burns prefers the term transforming to the term transformational in describing the leader because transforming captures this dimension of mutual interaction, with the implication of both leader and follower simultaneously being transformed (Bailey, 2001). The dimension of mutuality is an important aspect of transformational leadership. Mutuality is also addressed in Bouldings thinking on power. The integration component of love as a basis of power involves a reciprocal dynamic. Boulding believes this reciprocity enables productivity within organizations. The mutuality component, described as the ability on the part of the follower to have impact on the life of the leader, and the position of this at the very core of the definition of transforming leadership, points to the fact that this type of paradigm differs substantively from the charismatic leader paradigm. The transformational leader has a different focus, a different process, and different goals. This can be diagrammed below:

TranSformaTional leaderShiP and muTualiTy

tf views
Diagram 2: Transformational Leader
VISION (leaders focus)

TRANSFORMING

(leaders focus) Process: Mutual stimulation

FOLLOWER LEADER

There are two foci for the transforming leader, both the follower and the vision. These are distinct and somewhat complimentary foci. But the distinctive here is seminal because the vision is to develop the follower not only as a means to an end (getting the vision accomplished), but also as an end in itself. The leader is not doing this development of the follower out of a sense of expediency, but because it is part of his/ her vision. Transforming leadership was conceived by Burns as leaders who valued a learning process, specifically leaders who were able to learn from others. The fact that the leader seeks to receive from the follower, in Burnss definition, profiles the transformational leader as a learner, not the one who has all the answers. It is this modelling of learning that impacts the follower to perceive that they, as followers, are also learners and as such can enter into a free exchange with the leader. Boulding, referring to the structure of integrative power, stated that,the extent and the power of this network depends a great deal on the development of what might be called a learning identity and a culture that puts a high value on learning (Boulding, 1989, p. 118). In some contexts, the vision of the transformational leader can be almost exclusively to impact the life of the follower, as Burnss definition suggests, and as is often the case within an educational context in a teacher and student relationship. The emphasis on mutuality allows the follower to help frame her/his own vision as part of the overall vision setting process, as well as impacting the leader to further develop the vision. This interactive process is also seminal to
TranSformaTional leaderShiP and muTualiTy

fields such as social work, rehabilitation work, and development programs within communities. It may be that transformational leadership is easier to implement within these contexts because the goal of these organization is already to foster mutual exchange. Yukl (1998) identifies value internalisation as a key component of the influence process for transformational leaders.According to Yukl, the focus is not necessarily on the leader, but the goals articulated as vision and mission for the organization play a significant role for the follower. The bond the follower has to the organization is not necessarily with the leader or the characteristics of the leader, but the follower has values that align with the organizations. This is in contrast to the charismatic leaders focus on the appeal being him or herself.

Discussion of Differences
The process that is used by charismatic and transformational leader also has substantive differences. The charismatic leader is the head of the show, ultimately responsible to not only articulate his/her vision clearly, but also gain agreement and commitment to that specific vision.The transforming leader has openness to follower input and impact of the vision, which involves power sharing and participation. This is the mutual stimulation that Burns refers to in his definition of transforming leaders. This approach has parallels with Senges (1994) learning organization, which identifies followers and leaders as each having significant aspects of the vision that together constitutes the vision. The triangle above depicts the fact that both leader and follower have aspects of the vision. The leader allows followers to influence what the vision is. This does not take place with the charismatic leader. The difference in process of the leaders points to a difference in the self-schemas of the leaders. The openness, which the transforming leader extends to the follower that encourages and fosters mutual stimulation, can only happen because of the leaders self-schema. Self-aggrandisement can not come into the picture here because self-aggrandisement prohibits the type of free exchange that allows for mutual stimulation to occur. In order to have an environment that fosters mutual stimulation, the power differential can not be the focus of the relationship. Boulding (1989) was aware of this, and undoubtedly this
Transformation 24/3 & 4 July & October 2007 185

tf views
is one of the reasons he posited that integrative power and integrative leadership has its basis in love. What role does charisma play in identification of transforming leaders? The literature on transformational leadership does focus on the leader being a change agent, but the transforming leaders charisma is not the defining characteristic for the transformational leader (Burns, 1978; Bass & Avolio, 1997; Beyer, 1999; Alban-Metcalfe & AlimoMetcalfe, 2000). The need to appear larger then life or to embellish oneself or distance oneself in order to attain status by a charisma that is larger then life is not characteristic of the transformational leader. This charismatic aspect of persona is not the major focus in describing transforming leaders. Mother Theresa and Ghandi are both cited by Burns (1978) as being transformational leaders who exemplify transformation, but who would not fit the criteria of charismatic or charisma as Weber (1947) defined the term. It is this very fact that led Burns to identify transformational leaders as distinct from charismatic leaders. Self-aggrandisement did not factor into and/or is not necessary to the transformational leaders approach. Beyers (1999) identifies the fact in her critique pointing out House, et al.s (1991) identification of need for power and affiliation as central to charismatic leaders with both affiliation and achievement being negatively associated with the term. Beyers suggests that, Gandhi, Mandela and Mother Theresa probably fall short, in his eyes, on need for power and dominance (Beyer, 1999, p. 585), but then again, Mandela and Mother Theresa were not charismatic leaders. They were/are transformational leaders. Other examples of transformational leaders include Glad and Blantons (1997) analysis of De Klerk and Mandela.Their research concluded that charisma was not the factor that created the environment for change in South Africa; rather they described De Klerk and Mandela as transformational leaders whose characteristics included offering a listening ear to followers. This is different than a larger then life personality. AlimoMetcalfe & Alban-Metcalfes (2001) research also found a component of charisma but this was not the key factor in follower perception of transforming leaders. The key factor in transformational leadership perception by followers in the Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfes (2001) research was the Genuine Concern for Others scale. The research suggests that the focus for the transformational leader is not primarily on the self, but inclusive of others. The discussion so far has shown that the leaders that have been identified as transforming leaders in the literature do not use charisma as their main influence process with others. The transforming leader does not focus on elevation of self, so the transforming leaders perception of self differs from the charismatic leaders perception of self. In other words, the persona (self-perception) of the leaders differentiates between these theories, as indicated by the difference in the influence processes with the follower. The charismatic leader is responsible for buy in of followers for the vision that s/he establishes. The dynamic in this type of process is leader focused. It is the leaders responsibility to continue to stimulate and envision. In contrast, the transforming leader operates on the assumption that followers have vision and need to be able to have a context where that vision is allowed to come forward. There is respect towards the followers contribution to articulating the vision. This is the mutuality that Burns refers to. Bouldings theory of love is a conceptual fit with aspects of Burnss definition of transforming leadership. Because love can be viewed from a base of power perspective, love can be seen as integrative; consequently, fostering transformation as an aspect of a learning environment in the relationship between leader and follower.This led to the identification of a learning environment being created with deliberation by the transforming leader possibly as a consequence of having a self-schema that includes Bouldings description of love as one of its bases. The discussion of themed differences between charismatic/heroic leaders and transforming leader is presented in Table 1.3

186 Transformation 24/3 & 4 July & October 2007

TranSformaTional leaderShiP and muTualiTy

tf views
Table 2:1 Themes/differences: Transforming vs. Heroic/Charismatic Leader
Leader paradigm Definition Transforming Leader Burnss theorizing: leader and follower reciprocal process of empowerment (Burns, 1978; Dvira & Shamir, 2003 acknowledge this definition in their recent research) possibly servant; change agent (Bass & Steindlmeier, 1998; AlimoMetcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2001) allows mutuality (Burns, 1978; AlimoMetcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2001; 2001b) shares power; power basis potentially Bouldings definition of love as integrating power (Miller, 2005) Consequences: succession not as problematic Heroic/Charismatic Leader Conger & Kanungos theorizing: follower empowers leader via acquiescence to leaders vision (Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Dumas & Sankowsky, 1998; Jacobsen, 2001; Shamir & Howell, 2000 cited in Dvira & Shamir, 2003) hero imaging; change agent (Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Dumas & Sankowsky, 1998; Dorian et al., 2000) need for control (view mutuality as inappropriate) (Shamir et al., 1998) actors (Gardner & Avolio, 1998) personal power: SEA power, S symbolic is paternal symbol, E as expertise is skills and abilities and A as advocacy is personal appeal and skills of persuasion (Dumas & Sankowsky, 1998) Consequences: succession is problematic (Conger, 1999) vision fulfilment by envisioning and stimulating followers to follow leaders vision (Shamir et al., 1998; Conger & Kanungo, 1998)

Orientation

Self-schema

Power Orientation

Perceptions of Success

mutual elevation and stimulation; followers become leaders; vision fulfilment inclusive of follower and leader vision (Burns, 1978; AlimoMetcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2003) transforming leader seen in all cultures (Den Hartog et al, 1999) comfortable with nearby in orientation whatever level in organization even if top leader (Miller, 2005)

Fit across Cultures Leader Proximity

charismatic leader seen in all cultures (Den Hartog et al., 1999) comfortable with distant usually described as top leaders (Shamir et al., 1998)

Organizational Behaviours Research concerning Charismatic Leadership

Clearly, the discussion so far has not involved the research examining charismatic leadership as leaders within church contexts; those leaders who would describe themselves as charismatic because of their belief that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are in evidence within the church today. It is to those leaders specifically that the remainder of this article is being written; to provide understanding of the term, as well as perceptions of the leadership process when the term is being used
TranSformaTional leaderShiP and muTualiTy

within organizational behaviour research and much of the business community. The dictionary meaning of the term as an adjective within the phrase charismatic leader means possessing an extraordinary ability to attract, or a magnetic personality. The quality of being charismatic is seen as a dimension of the individuals personality, not a gift from God of charisma. This meaning has nothing whatsoever to do with belief in the gifts of the Holy Spirit for today. Context plays a part in understanding what the term charismatic leadership means within
Transformation 24/3 & 4 July & October 2007 187

tf views
cultures (Den Hartog et al., 1999). Certain cultures perceive charismatic leadership as malevolent and potentially destructive. The Dutch, who suffered greatly during the war, are openly sceptical of awarding hero status to leaders (Den Hartog et al., 1999). Organizations are increasingly calling into question whether the charisma qualities of a charismatic leader are to be prized. Recent longitudinal research over 10 years with a sample of Fortune 500 companies indicated that,in essence, charismatic CEOs seem able to influence their compensation packages and stock prices but no other indicators of firm performance (Tosi et al., 2004, p. 405). Apart from influencing stock prices, the charismatic leaders did not influence firm performance. Beyers raises the concern that the negative consequences of charisma are, seldom addressed in empirical work (Beyer, 1999, p. 583). The term charismatic leadership has been used by some leadership theorists to describe positive impact on society (Shamir, 2001), but this has been the centre of much debate. The consequences of a charismatic leaders impact on society have a great deal to do with the ultimate motive and agenda of the leader for good or bad (Burns, 1978). Shamir, House & Arthur (1993) developed a self-concept theory of charismatic leaders that emphasizes the leader valuing the followers ideals as well as being impacted by the followers willingness to be led. Shamir et al.s theory places charismatic leaders in a positive light with the possible emphasis suggesting some charismatic leaders have elements of altruism. However, the picture that emerges across numerous leadership theories and research is confusion about the term charisma or charismatic, and it is defined as either good or bad in accordance with the model that it represents (Conger & Kanunga, 1998). Leadership research indicates that charisma can be used to impact others beneficially (as Shamir et als model suggests) or harmfully (House, 1977; Burns, 1978; Shamir, 1995; Conger & Kanunga, 1998). No one can doubt the charismatic quality of Osama bin Laden (Kakutani, 2001), or the appeal that Hitler had to a generation of youth, or Jim Jones to a community of religious followers. In the US, there are mixed feelings about charismatic leadership and the underlying magic that is associated with a larger then life persona. One major concern repeatedly raised is that the
188 Transformation 24/3 & 4 July & October 2007

power imbalance between the leader and follower can have a negative effect on followers (Dumas & Sankowsky, 1998; Conger & Kanunga, 1998; Jordan, 1998). Ross and Offerman (1990, citing Hogan, Raskin, & Fazzini) argue that charismatic leadership may have a negative and dark side, which can harm people and organizations, and this is re-enforced by Goleman4 (1990). Some theorists altogether dismiss the benefit of charismatic leadership. Khurana (2002) equates charismatic CEOs as detrimental to organizations, and equates belief in charisma with belief in magic. Charismatic leadership has been relabelled heroic leadership by some and the name charismatic/heroic is used interchangeably in the leadership literature.The central features of the heroic leader mirrors the charismatic leader in that heroic leaders are perceived as larger then life, and are role models that others are supposed to look up to, and seek to emulate. The charismatic leadership style represents a role-model approach that seeks to inspire the follower (Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2001). Mintzberg identifies the heroic style of leadership as inappropriate for long term organizational growth and development (Mintzberg, 1999). Senge describes the heroic leadership model as, the destructive hero-CEO myth in his video series on leadership, focusing instead on trust and relationship in a collective organization environment to bring transformation (Senge, 2004). The focus of heroic leadership is the leaders ability and seeming perfection and invincibility. ONeil and ONeil identify the heroic leader as one who has all the answers, with an influence process that does not enable participation from others in the organization. However, complexity within organizations and the rapid pace of change are helping to clarify and identify the fact that the heroic style of leadership is antiquated. ONeill & ONeill (2002) go on to suggest that leadership can be construed appropriately as a multilateral instead of unilateral relationship because of the complexity of todays organizations. Their point is that no one person will have all the correct answers, all the time, and therefore point to, all parties have a say (ONeill & ONeill, 2002, p. 13). The liability of the charismatic/heroic leader is their own ego can potentially get in the way of benefiting others and the organization. Behaviours such as not including competent others into decision making limits the knowledge base from which decisions are being made (Senge et al.,
TranSformaTional leaderShiP and muTualiTy

tf views
1994). If the leader is threatened by having competent others around him/her, and consequently bases decision making on a set of potential fears of being undermined, then this can have a compromising effect on what is ultimately best for the organization as well as all the individuals within it (Senge et al., 1994). In the increased complexity of organizations and the need for increased integration that complexity requires, the heroic leader can be a liability (ONeil & ONeil, 2003). The charismatic/heroic leader contrasts sharply with the quiet leader. Although not referring specifically to transforming leaders, Badaracco sums up the style of middle and senior level managers whom he believes ultimately enable the success of their organizations. What usually matters are careful, thoughtful, small, practical efforts by people working far from the limelight. In short, quiet leadership is what moves and changes the world (Bandaracco, 2002, p. 8). The concept of quiet leaders is a conceptual fit with the nearby leaders described by Shamir (1995) who are perceived by followers as transformational. AlimoMetcalfes (2004) description of transactional behaviours delivered in a transformational manner is also a fit with Bandaraccos description. persona and influence processes related to love as a form of power for the transforming leader, and identification of two transformational leadership influence processes, mutuality of exchange and power sharing. The discussion identifying Bouldings theory of love, when understood in light of Burnss definition of transforming leaders, provided understanding of how the influence processes of mutuality and power sharing is used by the transforming leader. The transforming leaders influence process enables followers the space from which to have impact on the vision, the leader provides a learning environment, and the leader models being a learner. There is a reciprocal process of empowerment that is multi-faceted, but it is not dependent mainly on the charisma of the leader. Lastly, clarification of terminology is essential when using the phrase charismatic leadership. The extensive research specifically referring to organizational behaviours perception of charismatic leadership has spawned multiple attendant articles within journals across many fields. It is therefore highly likely that use of the term charismatic leadership will call to mind what the reader has learned via these articles about the term. It is prudent to keep this in mind whenever the term charismatic leadership is being used, especially when describing leaders who are leaders within the context of the church.

Concluding Remarks
Conger & Kanungo point out that the common ground for these leadership theories (charismatic versus transformational) is the ability of both leadership approaches to influence followers and promote change (Conger & Kanungo, 1998). This is the common ground for both charismatic and transforming leaders. The research literature indicates that the influence processes used by charismatic leaders is different from the influence processes used by transforming leaders, which provides evidence of differences in persona. The leaders persona, which is her /his self-perception and consequent self-schema, has ramifications throughout the organization. Because there is continued debate in distinguishing between charismatic and transforming leadership in the research literature, this article has sought to identify sufficient grounds in assessing transforming leadership influence processes as conceptually distinct from charismatic leadership processes; to enable identification of distinctive influence processes used by transforming leaders. The discussion was limited to analysis of
TranSformaTional leaderShiP and muTualiTy

Bibliography
Alban-Metcalfe, R. J., Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (2000). An analysis of the covergent and discriminant validity of the Transformational Leaderhsip Questionnaire. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8(3), 158-175. Alimo-Metcalfe, B., Alban-Metcalfe, R. J. (2001). The development of a new Transformational Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(1), 1-26. Alimo-Metcalfe, B., & Alban-Metcalfe R. (2003). Training manual. Leeds, UK: Leadership Research and Development Ltd. Alimo-Metcalfe, B., Alban-Metcalfe, R. (2003b). Under the influence:The crucial importance of leadership. People Management, (9)5, 32-36. Alimo-Metcalfe, B., Alban-Metcalfe R. J. (2002). Leadership. In P. Warr (Ed.), Psychology at Work (pp. 300325). London, UK: Penguin. Argyle, M., Colman, A. M. (Ed.). (1999). Social psychology (1995 ed.). London, UK: Longman. Badaracco, J. L. (2002). Leading Quietly: An Unorthodox Guide to Doing the Right Thing. Boston, Mass: Transformation 24/3 & 4 July & October 2007 189

tf views
Harvard Business School Press. Bailey, J. (2001). Leadership lessons from Mount Rushmore: An interview with James MacGregor Burns. Leadership Quarterly, 12(1), 113-128. Bannister, D., Fransella, F. (1986). Inquiring man: The psychology of personal constructs. London, UK: Routledge. Bardy, R. (2002, Dec. 16-17). Leadership in the US and in continental Europe. Paper presented at the Leadership Research Workshop, Said Business School, Oxford, UK. Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Elabaum. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden. Bass, B. M., Steidlmeier, P. (1998, 9/24/98). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership. Retrieved 9/2/02 Behling, O., McFillen, J. M. (1996).A syncretical model of charismatic/transformational leadership. Group & Organization Management, 21(2), 163-192. Beyer, J. M. (1999). Two approaches to studying charismatic leadership: Competing or complimentary? The Leadership Quarterly, 10(4), 575-588. Birchfield, R.W. (ed.). (1989). Oxford english dictionary (Vol. 1). Oxford, UK: Clarendon. Boulding, K. E. (1959). Notes on the role of the social sciences in economic development, 2002, from http://csf.colorado.edu/authors/Boulding.Kenneth/ soc_sci_econ_dev.html Boulding, K. E. (1989). Three faces of power. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Bradford, D., Cohen, A. (1998). Power Up: Transforming Organizations through Shared Leadership: John Wiley & Sons. Brodbeck, F. C., Frese, M., Akerblom, S., Bakacsi, G. A. G., Bendova, H., Bodega, D. et al. (2000). Cultural variation of leadership prototypes across 22 European countries. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(1), 37. Bryman,A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. London, UK: Sage. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. London, UK: Harper Torchbooks. Cheng,T., Sculli, D., Shui-fun, F. (2001). Relationship dominance Rethinking management theories from the perspective of methodological relationalism. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(2), 97-105. Ciulla, J. B. (Ed.). (1998). Ethics: The heart of leadership. Westport, CT: Praeger. Conger, J., Kanungo, R,. (1988).The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471-483. Conger, J. A. (1998). Qualitative research as the cornerstone methodology for understanding leadership. 190 Transformation 24/3 & 4 July & October 2007 Leadership Quarterly, 9(1), 107-122. Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leaders in organizations:An insiders perspective on these developing streams of research. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 145-170. Conger, J.A., Benjamin, B. (1999). Building leaders: How successful companies develop the next generation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Conger, J.A., Kanungo, R. N. (1988). Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Curry, B. K. (2002). The influence of the leader persona on organizational identity. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(4), 33-44. Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W. (1999). Culture specifics and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 219-256. Den Hartog, D. N.,Van Muijen, J. J., Koopman, P. L. (1997). Transactional versus transformational leadership:An analysis of the MLQ (Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire). Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70(1), 19-35. Dorfman, P. W., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., Brodbeck F., and GLOBE Research Team. (2002, Dec. 16-17). Identification and measurement of culturally endorsed leadership prototypes. Paper presented at the EIASM, Said Business School, Oxford, UK. Dorian, B. J., Dunbar, C., Frayn, D., Garfinkel, P. E. (2000). Charismatic leadership, boundary issues, and collusion. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 54(2), 216-225. Dumas, C., Sankowsky, D. (1998). Understanding the charismatic leader-follower relationship: Promises and perils. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(4), 29. Dvira, T., Shamir, B. (2003). Follower developmental characteristics as predicting transformational leadership: a longitudinal field study. Retrieved June 2003, 12 April 2003, from Leadership Quarterly at Quick Search Fiol, C. M., Harris, D., House, R. (1999). Charismatic leadership: Strategies for effecting social change. Retrieved Sept. 04, 2002 Fleck, J., Scarbrough, H., Swann, J. (2005). Trainer notes: Cognitive mapping techniques. http://omni.bus. ed.ac.uk/opsman/oakland/contents.htm Fuller, J. B., Morrison, R., Jones, L., Bridger, D., Brown, V. (1999). The effects of psychological empowerment on transformational leadership and job satisfaction. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139(3), 389-392. Furnham, A. (1998). The psychology of behaviour at work: The individual in the organization. London, UK: Psychology Press.
TranSformaTional leaderShiP and muTualiTy

tf views
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management, 23(1), 32-58. Gardner, W. L., Cleavenger, D. (1998). The impression strategies associated with transformational leadership at the world-class level: A psychohistorical assessment. Management Communications Quarterly, 12(1), 3-41. Glad, B., Blanton, R. (1997). F. W. de Klerk and Nelson Mandela: A study in cooperative transformational leadership. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 27(3), 565-591. Goleman, D. (1990, April 1). The dark side of charisma; Traits that help leaders to the top can prove disasterous later. The New York Times, p. F25. Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York, NY: Paulist Press. Grint, K. (2002, Dec. 16-17). What is leadership? Paper presented at the The First International Workshop on Leadership Research, Said Business School and Templeton, Oxford University. Hirst, G., Mann, L., Bain, P., Pirola-Merlo, A., Richver, A. (2004). Learning to lead:The development and testing of a model of learning leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(3), 311-327. Hooijberg, R., Choi, J. (2000). From selling peanuts and beer in Yankee Stadium to creating a theory of transformational leadership: An interview with Bernie Bass. Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), 291-307. House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. H. L. L. Larson (Ed.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale, Il: Southern Illinois University Press. House, R. J. (1995). Leadership in the twenty-first centurey: A speculative inquiry. In A. Howard (Ed.), The Changing Nature of Work (pp. 411-450). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. House, R. J., Spangler,W. D.,Woycke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the U.S. presidency: A psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 364-396. Hunt, J. G. (1999). Transformational/Charismatic leaderships transformation of the field:An historical essay. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 129-145. Hunt, J. G., Conger, J. A. (1999). From where we sit: An assessment of transformational and charismatic leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(3), 335-343. Jacobsen, C. (2001). Dynamics of charismatic leadership: A process theory, simulation model, and tests. Leadership Quarterly, 12(1), 75-113. Jones, S. L., Butman, R. E. (1991). Modern psychotherapies: A comprehensive Christian appraisal. Downers Grove, Ill: Inter Varsity Press. Jordan, D. (1998). Leadership: The state of the research. Parks and Recreation, 33(10), 32-61. Judge, W. Q. (1999). The leaders shadow: Exploring
TranSformaTional leaderShiP and muTualiTy

and developing executive character. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kakutani, M. (2001, November 6). How Osama bin Laden became a global celebrity. The New York Times, p. E1. Kempster, S. (2002, Dec. 16-17). How leaders believe they have learnt how to lead: An examination of the lived experience of leadership development. Paper presented at the EIASM, Said Business School, Oxford, UK. Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (2001). Creating authentizotic organizations:Well-functioning individuals in vibrant companies. Human Relations, 54(1), 101-111. Khurana, R. (2002). The curse of the superstar CEO. Harvard Business Review, 80(9), 60-66. Meindl, J. R. (2001). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(1), 163-165. Miller, M. (2005) The relationship between transformational leadership and love as choice to will the highest good using the Transformational Leadership Questionnaire (TLQ). Unpublished PhD, University of Wales. Mintzberg, H. (1999, Spring). Managing quietly, 12, from www.pfdf.org/leaderbooks/121/spring99/ mintzberg.html Myung, H., Hong,Y. (Ed.). (2003). Charis And Charisma. Oxford, UK: Regnum Books International. ONeill, L., ONeill, B. (2002, Dec. 16-17). Where you stand on leadership depends on where you sit in the organization. Paper presented at the EIASM, Said Business School, Oxford, UK. Pielstick, D. C. (1998). The transforming leader: A metaethnographic analysis. Retrieved 9/4, 2002, from http://www.findarticles.com Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, committment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22(2), 259-299. Price, T. L. (2002). The ethics of authentic transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(1), 67-81. Ross, S. M., Offermann, L. R. (1997). Transformational leaders: Measurement of personality attributes and work group performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(10), 1078-1092. Schlenker, B. R. (1985). Identity and self-identification. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The Self and Social Life (pp. 65-99). New York: NY: McGraw-Hill. Senge, P. (2004). Senge on Leadership, from www.solonline.org/aboutsol/who/Senge/ Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., Smith, B. J. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday. Shamir, B. (1995). Social distance and charisma: TheoTransformation 24/3 & 4 July & October 2007 191

tf views
retical notes and an exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly, 6(1), 19-47. Shamir, B. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285-306. Shamir, B. (2001). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(1), 112-114. Shamir, B., Dayan-Horesh, H.,Adler, D. (2002, Dec. 16-17). Leading by biography: Towards a biographical approach to the study of leadership. Paper presented at the EIASM workshop on Leadership Research, Said Business School, Oxford University. Shamir, B., House, R. J. Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A selfconcept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577-594. Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors appraisals of leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 387-409. Sorokin, P. A. (2002 org. 1954). The ways and power of love: Types, factors, and techniques of moral transformation. Radnor, Penn:Templeton Foundation. Sosa-Fey, J. (2001). Transformational leadership: A crosscultural study of the moderating effects of culture on perceived leader behaviors. (pp. 1-160). Unpublished Dissertation: Nova Southeastern University. Sosik, J. J. (1997). Effects of transformational leadership and anonymity on idea generation in computermediated groups. Group & Organization Management, 22(4), 460-488. Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I. (2002). Examining the relationship of self-presentation attributes and impression management to charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(3), 217-242. Sosik, J. J., Dworakiovsky,A. C. (1998). Self-concept based aspects of the charismatic leader: More than meets the eye. Leadership Quarterly, 9(4), 503-527. Sosik, J. J., Potosky, D., Jung, D. I. (2002).Adaptive self-regulation: Meeting others expectations of leadership and performance. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142(2), 211-233. Speitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., Nason, S. W. (1997). Dimensional analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain. Journal of Management, 23(5), 679-704. Szabo, E., Weibler, R., Brodbeck, F. C., Wunderer, R. (2001). Value and behavior orientation in leadership studies: Reflections based on findings in three German-speaking countries. Leadership Quarterly, 12(2), 219-245. Tosi, H. L., Misangyi, V. F., Fanelli, A., Waldman, D. A., Yammarino, F. J. (2004). CEO charisma, compensation, and firm performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(2), 405-420. Weber, M. (1964, org. 1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York, NY: The Free Press. Webster, N. (Ed.). (1979). Websters new universal unabridged dictionary. New York, NY: Dorset & Baber. Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Notes
1 A construct is essentially a discrimination which a person can make. Personal construct psychology is an attempt to understand the way in which each of us experiences the world, to understand our behaviour in terms of what it is designed to signify and to explore how we negotiate our realities with others (Bannister & Fransella, 1986, p. 27). 2 Freidrich (1961) severely criticized this approach as inappropriate, because the meaning of the word indicated specific gifts from God. Freidrich felt the term should not extend beyond the church and suggested the term inspirational should be substituted for charismatic. 3 Table 1 is not representative of all differences between transforming leaders and charismatic leaders, but identifies only the discussion raised in this article. 4 Goleman (1990) suggested that the very traits that help get leaders to the top of the organisation can be disastrous for the organisation later.

192 Transformation 24/3 & 4 July & October 2007

TranSformaTional leaderShiP and muTualiTy