Consequence of Charismatic Leadership
Consequence of charismatic leadership
Max Weber a sociologist defines charismatic as “resting on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him”. Another theory of charismatic leadership was proposed by Conger and Kanungo (1987) based on the assumption that charisma is an attributional phenomenon. However a refined version of the theory was presented by Conger(1989) and by Conger and Kanungo (1998) which stated that follower attribution of charismatic qualities to a leader is jointly determined by the leader behavior, skill, and aspects of the situation.
Some people referred charismatic leadership to a certain famous figurehead like Adolf Hitler, Mahatma Gandhi, Mahathir Mohamed and etc. They are some examples of well-known leaders that said to have a very charismatic leadership in their era. Adolf Hitler is said to bring German country to become a new world power nation before the second world war(WWII). Nevertheless he was later commit suicide due to the loss of German allied in WWII.
Adolf Hitler during his Glory time.
In the chapter of charismatic leadership, we are going to discuss about the consequences of this charismatic leadership. There are two types of consequences that will be discussed which is positive and negative consequences of charismatic leadership. There are still some argument over the issue of how to differentiate between positive and negative charismatic leader and weather the particular action taken by a charismatic leader is beneficial or detrimental.
According to the book of House & Howell (1992), negative charismatic have a personalized power orientation. They emphasize more on personal identification rather than internalization. A negative charismatic leader will eventually gain more power by using some fake ideological approach which is later changed to their personal need. They make their self as a single power
Max Weber a sociologist defines charismatic as “resting on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him”. Another theory of charismatic leadership was proposed by Conger and Kanungo (1987) based on the assumption that charisma is an attributional phenomenon. However a refined version of the theory was presented by Conger(1989) and by Conger and Kanungo (1998) which stated that follower attribution of charismatic qualities to a leader is jointly determined by the leader behavior, skill, and aspects of the situation.
Some people referred charismatic leadership to a certain famous figurehead like Adolf Hitler, Mahatma Gandhi, Mahathir Mohamed and etc. They are some examples of well-known leaders that said to have a very charismatic leadership in their era. Adolf Hitler is said to bring German country to become a new world power nation before the second world war(WWII). Nevertheless he was later commit suicide due to the loss of German allied in WWII.
Adolf Hitler during his Glory time.
In the chapter of charismatic leadership, we are going to discuss about the consequences of this charismatic leadership. There are two types of consequences that will be discussed which is positive and negative consequences of charismatic leadership. There are still some argument over the issue of how to differentiate between positive and negative charismatic leader and weather the particular action taken by a charismatic leader is beneficial or detrimental.
According to the book of House & Howell (1992), negative charismatic have a personalized power orientation. They emphasize more on personal identification rather than internalization. A negative charismatic leader will eventually gain more power by using some fake ideological approach which is later changed to their personal need. They make their self as a single power