Formulation of goals
Setting challenging expectations Articulation:
Inspirational Frame alignment Intellectually stimulating Stage 3: Means to Achieve Goals Empowering:
Showing confidence in followers Setting personal examples (role modeling) Displaying competence (role modeling) Showing self-confidence (role modeling) Taking risks (establishing trust) Showing selfless effort (role modeling) Unconventional tactics to transcend existing order
X X
X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X X X X X X
X X
X X X X X X X
4. individualized consideration of followers (sample item to measure component:
"Coaches me if I need it").
The distinction made by Bass between charismatic and transformational lead- ership is based on a narrow specification of charismatic influence (i.e., limited to formulation of vision or challenging goals). The other three models of charismatic leadership have used the term to include all four components specified in the Bass model. In addition, as we noted in Chapter 1, empirical research on the Bass model consistently shows that the charisma component is the most prominent factor explaining transformational leadership. Research literature on both charismatic and transformational leadership models itself portrays the leader's strategic vision as playing a central role in animating and empowering followers (Bryman, 1992).
From our vantage point, what distinguishes transformational from charis- matic leadership has little to do with any fundamental differences in leader behavior or tactics but rather with the perspective from which the leadership phenomenon is viewed. The charismatic theories and research have measured leadership from the standpoint of perceived leader behavior, whereas the transformational theories to date have concerned themselves primarily with follower outcomes. In the case of the transformational forms, this was the natural
outcome of Burns's (1978) original conceptualization focusing on elevating follower needs and motives to the forefront of the leadership experience. On the other hand, the earlier formulations of charismatic leadership emerging from the fields of sociology and political science were concerned primarily with which leader behaviors and contexts induced follower responses. In essence, the two formulations of charismatic and transformational in the organizational literature are highly complementary and study the same phenomenon, only from different vantage points.
In addition to the overlap of specific behavior components of charismatic leadership identified in various models, there also is an overlap with respect to the nature of the leadership influence process in these models. All four models of charismatic leadership discussed above suggest that leaders use empower- ment rather than control strategies to achieve transformational influence over their followers. Conger and Kanungo (1988c) have proposed a model of the empowerment process that explains a leader's empowerment strategies (see also Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996b). During the evaluation of the status quo, the leader identifies organizational and environmental conditions that are alienating followers and hence need to be changed. Such a diagnosis prepares the leader in empowerment strategies such as the idealization of the vision, inspirational articulation, and modeling behavior (personal risk taking and sacrifice) that provide self-efficacy information to the followers. As a result of receiving self-efficacy information from the leader's behaviors, followers strengthen their self-determination belief and feel empowered and self-assured. Such feelings in turn make them more productive and committed to the leader and to the vision.
House and Shamir (1993, p. 88) also suggest that the charismatic leader's behavior influences the self-concept of followers by creating high self-esteem, self-worth, and self-efficacy. This, in turn, results in heightened commitment in followers to a leader and his or her vision.
Bass and Avolio's (1993, p. 56) behavioral indication of transformational leadership clearly has empowering effects on followers. For example, behavioral indicators such as (1) promoting self-development among followers (individu- alized consideration), (2) convincing followers that they have the ability to
achieve high performance levels (inspirational motivation), (3) fostering a readi- ness for changes in thinking (intellectual stimulation), and (4) modeling through self-sacrifice (idealized influence) do provide self-efficacy information to fol- lowers and consequently have empowering effects on them. Recently, Bass (1977) himself has pointed out that "envisioning, enabling, and empowering leadership . . . are central to transformational leadership" (p. 131). In addition, Sashkin (1988) suggests that visionary leaders "boost the sense of self-worth of those around them by expressing unconditional positive regard, paying atten- tion, showing trust, sharing ideas, and making clear how important and valued organization members are" (p. 145).
All these charismatic leadership models advocate the transformational influ- ence of leaders, where the main goal is to change followers' core attitudes, beliefs, and values rather than only to induce compliance behavior in them.
Again, all the models agree that charismatic leadership leads to attitude changes among followers, characterized by identification with the leader and the inter- nalization of values embedded in the leader's vision.
Because all the charismatic leadership models discussed above are behavioral models, they agree that the leadership behavior components and their effects on followers can be observed at all levels of the organizations. As Bass and Avolio (1993) point out, however, "Even though transformational leadership behavior has been observed at lower organizational levels, it is likely to occur more frequently at the highest organizational levels" (p. 54) because organizations provide greater scope for visioning (or mission formulation and implementa- tion) behavior at the higher rather than the lower levels.
In conclusion, the Conger-Kanungo model of charismatic leadership is the most comprehensive (across all three leadership stages) of the proposed leader- ship theories on charismatic and transformational leadership. We now turn our attention to reviewing what we have learned from empirical tests of the Conger- Kanungo model. In the next chapter, we explore the results of six empirical studies undertaken to operationalize the model, which in turn have led to the development of a charismatic leadership measure.
NOTE
1. The "romance of leadership'* refers to a school of thought arguing that followers and others exaggerate the importance of a leader in their need to explain events and attribute causality to an individual in a position of authority.