charisma

Communication Monographs  Vol. 77, No. 4, December 2010, pp. 576  591 591 Á 

Measuring Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: Why isn’t Charisma Measured? Kenneth J. Levine, Robert A. Muenchen & Abby M. Brooks

The literature on both the Transformational and Charismatic theories of leadership  espo espous usee the the impo import rtan ance ce of comm commun unic icat atio ion n as part part of the the lead leader ersh ship ip phen phenom omen ena. a. However, However, the existing existing measuremen measurementt scales (The Multidime Multidimension nsional al Leadership Leadership Questionna tionnaire ire,, the Conger  Conger  Kanun anungo go Chari Charism sma a Scal Scale, e, the the Foll Follow ower ersh ship ip Scal Scalee and and the  the  Romance of Leadership Scale) that are used to assess both the Transformational and  Charism Charismati aticc Theorie Theoriess fail fail to adequa adequatel telyy addres addresss and measur measuree the commun communica icatio tion  n  beha behavio viors rs that that are are beli believe eved d to be a part part of char charis isma ma.. Fourour-hu hund ndre red d twen twenty ty-t -two  wo  respon responden dents ts comple completed ted the standa standard rd measur measureme ement nt scales scales and were were asked asked to define  define  ‘‘charisma’’ and to discuss the communication behaviors of a charismatic leader. Using  text analysis and correlations, no relationships were found between the existing scales  and the definitions and behaviors associated with charisma. This manuscript suggests the  creation of a new leadership measurement that includes charismatic communication  behaviors to assist in a proper understanding of these two leadership theories. Á  Á 

Keywords: Keywords: Leadership; Charisma  Introduction In early leadership studies, leaders and managers were considered to perform the same function within an organization. That assumption changed in the 1970s when leaders and managers came to be seen as separate and distinct positions within the organization (Conger, 1999). Hoyt and Ciulla (2004) suggested that this change in

Kenneth Kenneth J. Levine (PhD, Michigan State) is an Associate Professor Professor in the School of Communicat Communication ion Studies at the University of Tennessee. Robert A. Muenchen (M.A., Tennessee) is the Director of the Statistical Consulting Center at the University of Tennessee. Abby M. Brooks (PhD, Tennessee) is an Assistant Professor at Georgia Southern University. The authors are grateful for the assistance of the anonymous reviews. Correspondence to: Kenneth J. Levine, School of Communication Studies, University of Tennessee, 293 Communications Building Knoxville, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA. Email: [email protected] [email protected] ISSN 0363-7751 (print)/ISSN 1479-5787 (online) # 2010 National Communication Association DOI: 10.1080/03637751.2010.499368

Measuring Charisma  577

understanding led to the development of theories and approaches that describe leaders as ‘‘inspirational visionaries,’’ and that highlight the unique relationship between leaders and followers. Two significant theories were developed to explain this new understanding of leadership: (1) transformational leadership and (2) charismatic leadership. Charismatic leadership is similar to transformational leadership, as it examines the relationship between the leader and the followers and focuses on issues relating to vision, risk-taking, enthusiasm and confidence (Hoyt & Ciulla, 2004). Some theorists have suggested that charismatic leadership is a subdimension of transformational leadership; others state that the two theories overlap, as each identifies unique and important aspects of the leadership process (Yukl, 1999). A series of different measurement scales has been utilized to measure transformational and charismatic leadership. While the descriptions of both transformational and charismatic leadership embrace the importance of communication to charisma, the measurement scales developed to test these two theories fail to measure the communication of charisma adequately. This paper examines the validity of these leadership scales by comparing them to each other and to the meanings that are typically  associated with charisma and charismatic communication behavior. Results will indicate the usefulness of the different scales. Implications of this research will follow. Background  Burns (1978) introduced the idea of transformational leadership to demonstrate the two-step process that a leader uses to influence his/her followers: First, a leader attempts to raise the morals, values and ideals of the followers; and second, a leader promotes change in individuals, groups and organizations. To accomplish this change, a leader must foster good relationships with his/her followers as a means to encourage and motivate the followers to perform and excel. In addition, this relationship must keep the followers in line with the needs and requirements of the leader and the group or organization (Burns, 1978). Transformational leadership involves the moral uplifting of followers and requires that the leader exhibit moral maturity (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987). Yukl (1989) suggested that followers must feel trust and respect toward their leader and, these followers should be motivated to accomplish more than what was asked of them. Thus, unlike earlier theories that proposed that an effective leader is one who clarifies what performance is necessary, the transformational leader attempted to increase follower confidence and increase the value of the output that the follower produces (Bass, 1985). All of these components of transformational leadership require the use of communication in order to be successful. In a reinterpretation of Burns’ 1978 theory, Bass (1985) separated transactional and transformational leadership into two separate theories. Transactional leadership was based on cooperation through the exchange of rewards for performance (Burns, 1978). However, this theory is more about management and, as such, is not relevant to this discussion.

578

K. J. Levine et al.

House (1977) believed that transformational leaders must have a strong desire to influence and a strong core of personal values. Those transformational characteristics, combined with a dominant personality and self-confidence, permit this type of leader to act as a strong role model and to instill confidence in the followers. As a result, the follower accepts the leader’s beliefs, adopts an emotional involvement with the leader and, most importantly for the organization, becomes more goal-oriented and motivated (House, 1977). Bass (1990) found that employees believed that they gave an extra effort when their leader exhibited the characteristics of the transformational theory. Several models of transformational leadership have been proposed since Burns (1978) initially developed the theory, and each model varies slightly in describing the behavioral components of a transformational leader. Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman & Fetter (1990) incorporated aspects of seven behavioral components into their model: (1) identify and articulate a vision; (2) provide an appropriate model; (3) enhance intellectual acceptance of group goals; (4) sustain high performance expectations; (5) provide individualized support; (6) recognize accomplishments, and (7) continued intellectual stimulation. To this list, House (1977) added the ability to arouse individual motives and Bradford & Cohen (1984) listed the ability to continually  develop the skills of individuals. The most cited model was proposed by Bass (1985), who believed that the motivation of the follower could be traced to four major components of  transformational leadership: (1) idealized influence; (2) inspirational motivation; (3) individualized consideration and (4) intellectual stimulation. The first component, idealized influence, described a leader’s ability to articulate an inspiring vision and to engage in exemplary acts that followers interpret as involving great personal risk and sacrifice on the part of the leader (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). The second attribute is inspirational motivation, which Bass (1985) suggested is really a subset of influence. For the leader to be both inspirational and motivating, they must have articulated a ‘‘clear, appealing and inspirational vision to the followers’’ (Judge & Bono, 2000, p. 751). Bass and Avolio (1994) stated that the inspirational leader will motivate through their own confidence, enthusiasm and belief that the potential, desired outcomes are attainable. Individualized consideration, the third attribute, is a process through which the leader will pay particular attention to the subordinates’ needs and wants (Bass, 1985). Thus, Yammarino et al. (1993) suggested that to be a transformational leader, one must be both the coach and the mentor. In this role, the leader needs to communicate the necessary, illustrative feedback that the subordinate needs to achieve both individual and organizational needs. Panopoulos (1999) asserted that the leader must do more than simply be cognizant of and sensitive to the current needs of the follower; the leader must push the follower to elevate those needs to a higher level. The final attribute, intellectual stimulation, is accomplished when the subordinates are motivated by their leader to think of new ways to accomplish tasks (Bass, 1985). This would result from stimulating subordinates’ imaginations and enhancing their decision-making skills (Yammarino et al., 1993).

Measuring Charisma  579

A review of the above components of transformational leadership reveal that the verbs used most often to define Bass’s (1985) four attributes are (1) Influence; (2) Inspire; (3) Communicate; and (4) Motivate. Furthermore, it is believed that effective articulation, inspiration and motivation are components of competent communication (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984). Thus, it would appear that effective communication skills are at the forefront of the requirements to be a transformational leader. Without the communication skills necessary to articulate, inspire and motivate, the leader will have a more difficult time ‘‘transforming’’ the followers to either adopt or embrace the vision and the mission of the organization as their own and to begin to satisfy their self-actualization needs. As such, scales to measure transformational leadership need to include items geared to understand the communication skills of  the leader. Charismatic Leadership  Charismatic leadership has its roots in the 1922 writings of Max Weber (Conger &  Kanungo, 1988, 1994). Weber’s article, originally published in German, examined political leaders and believed that their power was a result of a social turmoil from which the charismatic leader would emerge with a new vision that would solve the crisis (Barbuto, 1997). Thus, the followers would identify with both the leader and the vision, and they would follow with both commitment and obedience (Avolio, Waldman & Einstein, 1988; House, 1977; Trice & Beyer, 1993). Despite years of inquiry, there is no universally agreed upon definition of charisma (Avolio & Yammarino, 1990; Halpert, 1990). The word charisma is derived from the Greek word, charismata , meaning ‘‘the gift of grace,’’ or ‘‘gifts presented by the gods’’ (Conger, 1989; Weber, 1947). Originally, the term was used to describe an individual’s power or attributes that could not be described by ordinary means (Conger, 1989; Weber, 1947). Avolio and Yammarino (1990) and Conger (1989) have described charisma as being much more personal. Their works highlight that while charisma is internal to the leader, the power that the leader holds over another is in the eye of the beholder. This amount of power or influence varies for different people. To define charismatic leadership, one must keep in mind that ‘‘charisma’’ does not describe just one personality type. The definition of this type of leadership is complex and involves the leader, the followers and their shared environment (Conger, 1989). Weber (1947) suggested that charisma is a leadership trait that sets one individual apart from others. Further, a charismatic leader is endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. Some researchers have determined that charisma is mainly a leader-follower phenomenon (Seltzer &  Bass, 1990), while others have reported that the reach of charismatic leadership does not stop at the leader-follower level and that a charismatic leader also makes a significant impact on the life of the organization (Tejeda, Scandura, & Pillai, 2001). In an attempt to define charismatic leadership, Trice and Beyer (1993) identified four attributes that a person must possess to be a charismatic leader: (1)

580

K. J. Levine et al.

extraordinary gifts; (2) presence in a crisis; (3) ability to present radical solutions; and (4) transcendent powers. Waldman and Yammarino (1999) looked specifically at CEO charisma and defined charismatic leadership based on relationships, attributions, internalized commitment, admiration, respect, identification and vision. Hollander and Offermann (1990) defined charisma by dividing the attributes of  charisma into three broad categories: (1) attitude and behavior; (2) situation; and (3) observers’ characteristics, adding another level to the depth of charisma. Waldman, Ramirez, House, & Puranam (2001) suggested that the behaviors of  charismatic leaders included: (1) articulating a vision and sense of mission, (2) showing determination, and (3) communicating high performance expectations. In addition, the charismatic leader demonstrated that leadership and achievement are a long-term process (Kanter, 1983; Trice & Beyer, 1993). A review of the above components of charismatic leadership revealed that the verbs used most often to define the concept are: (1) behavior (2) presence in a crisis; (3) determination; (4) communication of ideas; and (5) communication of expectations. As discussed above, these skills are traits of a competent communicator and should be evaluated when assessing a charismatic leader. Charismatic Communication  Despite the problems with defining the term, Nandal and Krishnan (2000) reported that a review of the charismatic leadership literature found that there is a strong correlation between charismatic leadership and employee satisfaction. Further, Flynn and Staw (2004) found that companies led by charismatic leaders tended to outperform similar companies in the same industry with non-charismatic leaders. Just as there is no set definition of charismatic leadership, there is no singular agreed upon definition of charismatic communication. Frese, Beimel, and Schoenborn (2003) believed that leaders can be trained to communicate charismatically. In their training, the researchers suggested that charisma is communicated via content and stylistic components. In the content component, ‘‘charisma was characterized by stressing the importance of the project, by sharing a vision related to the project, by increasing confidence of the subordinates and by stressing a common goal’’ (p. 673). The stylistic component includes the nonverbals of communication, such as power, confidence and a dynamic presence and Holladay and Coombs (1994) found that the nonverbals of the charismatic leader are important in demonstrating one’s emotional side. Shamir (1995) found that leaders who were deemed to be charismatic were thought to exhibit high energy, high intelligence and a high level of interpersonal communication skills. Shamir, House, and Arthur (1993) also found that charismatic leaders motivate their followers through the use of self-efficacy, which Bandura (1997) defined as the belief in one’s ability to organize and execute the necessary  action to produce the desired goals. Shea and Howell (1999) tested the self-efficacy  hypothesis and found that employees who were exposed to a charismatic leader performed better than those under a non-charismatic leader, regardless of situational variables such as task feedback. Renshon (1995, 1996) looked at political leaders and

Measuring Charisma  581

noted that the highly effective leaders portrayed: (1) ambition and determination; (2) interpersonal skills; and (3) cognitive-creative skills, all of which are attributes of  oratorical or verbal intelligence. Existing Measurement Scales  Conger (1999) stated that ‘‘our knowledge [of transformational leadership] is still formative in terms of leader behavior and follower effects. Both theory-building and continued exploratory research are necessary ’’ (p. 164). However, until the scales actually measure all the components of the theory, scholars and practitioners are left with an incomplete understanding of these important theories of leadership. With all the ways of describing, defining and characterizing charismatic leadership, researchers have difficulty explaining and assessing the phenomenon. Although not having a clear cut definition leads to the challenges of measuring charismatic leadership (Avolio & Yammarino, 1990), a series of different measurement scales have been utilized to measure both transformational and charismatic leadership including: the Conger Kanungo Charisma scale (Conger & Kanungo, 1988), the Followership Scale (Kelley, 1992), the Romance for Leadership Scale (Meindl & Ehrlich, 1988) and the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Bass, 1985). Bass’ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) scale is the predominant measure used to assess transformational leadership (Yukl, 1999). In Lowe and Kroeck ’s (1996) meta-analysis of the MLQ literature, it was determined that the MLQ was reliable and a good predictor of work effectiveness. However, Lowe and Kroeck  did note that the MLQ failed to take into consideration some moderator variables, such as the level of leadership and organizational setting. Yukl’s (1999) analysis of the scale found conceptual and methodological weaknesses, specifically addressing the high levels of intercorrelations among the subscales of the MLQ, as well as the use of  items that describe desired outcomes with those that describe behaviors. The MLQ was designed to measure the leadership style of the respondent and not to assess the qualities of the leadership that the employee may favor or may find motivating. As such, the scale does not truly measure the attributes of charisma. By drawing on previous studies and reviewing the literature, Conger and Kanungo (1988, 1994) originally constructed a 49-item scale to measure charisma. The items outlined 49 different charismatic behaviors as perceived by subordinates. The number of items was reduced to 25 items after Conger and Kanungo found 24 of the items were ambiguous, redundant and lacked discriminatory power (Conger & Kanungo, 1994). Subsequently, in 1998, the scale was reduced to 20 items. Kelley (1992) developed the Followership scale by collecting information from both followers and leaders. Most people spend their time in the followership role, and to be a successful follower it is important to have insight into how one fulfills the role. The study of followership is limited, due in part to the commonly held belief that the ability to motivate employees is a management or leadership skill and not a trait of  the subordinate (Gilbert & Hyde, 1988). The 20-item scale was created to accomplish Á 

582

K. J. Levine et al.

two specific purposes: (1) to help individuals determine their type of leadership, and (2) to pinpoint the participants’ followership strengths. The Romance of Leadership Scale (Meindl & Ehrlich, 1988) consists of nine items and is designed to determine the participant’s view of (1) how important leadership is to an organization and (2) how leadership is constructed. The results from participants give insight into how individuals in an organization perceive their leaders and how much the individuals are motivated by their superiors. Using this scale, De Vries (1999) found that subordinates are more, instead of less, dependent when a charismatic leader is present. Hypotheses and Research Questions This review of the literature on transformational and charismatic leadership suggests that there are components of the concept of charisma and charismatic behavior that are not yet entirely understood. As such, the following research questions (RQs) are proposed: RQ1: What does charisma mean? RQ2: What are the communication behaviors that are enacted by someone who is deemed to be charismatic?

There are several leadership scales that are designed to measure transformational and charismatic leadership. Therefore, the following hypotheses (H) are proposed: H1: There is a strong relationship between the existing scales of transformational and charismatic leadership. H2: There is no relationship between the meaning of charisma and the scales of  transformational and charismatic leadership.

Methods Participants  The data were collected from undergraduate and graduate students at a large southeastern university. A self-report questionnaire was administered to 422 respondents, 195 males and 217 females (10 missing). There were 87 first-year students, 127 sophomores, 99 juniors, 86 seniors, and 11 graduate students (11 missing). The mean age was 20.68 (range 18 50). Subjects were recruited in class and given course credit for participation. Á 

Procedures and Measurement  The questionnaire consisted of two open-ended items, four leadership scales and demographic information. Specifically, the survey included the Multidimensional Leadership Questionnaire (Bass, 1985); the Conger & Kanungo (1998) Charisma scale; the Followership scale (Kelley, 1992); and the Romance of Leadership Scale (Meindl & Ehrlich, 1988).

Measuring Charisma  583

The open-ended items asked the respondents: (1) to define charisma and (2) to detail the communication behaviors associated with charisma. Space was given on the questionnaire to respond to these open-ended items. Bass ’  Multidimensional Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). The Multidimensional Leadership Questionnaire form 6s (Bass, 1985) is designed to measure the respondents’ perceptions of their own leadership; it does not address the qualities of transformational leadership that are under investigation in the study, and hence will not be used in the subsequent analysis. Conger and Kanungo’s Charismatic Leadership Scale. The 1998 version of the Conger and Kanungo is divided into five subcategories: (1) strategic vision and articulation; (2) sensitivity to the environment; (3) sensitivity to members’ needs; (4) personal risk; and (5) unconventional behavior. The strategic vision dimension includes items such as ‘‘provides inspiring and strategic management goals’’ and ‘‘consistently generates new ideas for the future of the organization.’’ The reliability  alpha for this subcategory was .810. Sensitivity to the environment is measured with items such as ‘‘recognizes the abilities and skills of other members in the organization’’ and ‘‘recognizes the limitations of other members of the organization.’’ The reliability alpha was .777. The second subdimension of sensitivity to members’ needs includes such items as ‘‘influences others by developing mutual liking and respect’’ and ‘‘shows sensitivity for the needs and feelings of the other members of the organization.’’ The reliability alpha was .729. Personal risk is measured by asking if the leader ‘‘takes high personal risks for the sake of the organization’’ and ‘‘often incurs high personal cost for the good of the organization.’’ The reliability alpha was .835. Finally, items such as ‘‘engages in unconventional behavior in order to achieve organizational goals’’ and ‘‘uses nontraditional methods of achieve organizational goals’’ assess the category of  unconventional behavior. The reliability alpha for this subscale was .763. Followership Scale. The Followership Scale (Kelley, 1992) asked the followers to critically view themselves, their organization and their leader. The 12-item scale contains items such as ‘‘Do you independently think up new ideas that will contribute significantly to the leader’s goals?’’ and ‘‘Do you help the leader of the group see both the upside potential and downside risks of ideas or plans, playing the devil’s advocate if need be?’’ This scale scored a reliability alpha of .810. Romance of Leadership Scale. Finally, the Romance of Leadership scale (Meindl &  Ehrlich, 1988) consists of 9 items designed to determine the participant’s view of how  important leadership is to an organization and the construction of leadership. The items on this scale include such items as ‘‘There is nothing as critical to the bottomline performance of a company than the quality of its top-level leaders’’ and ‘‘It doesn’t matter who’s running the show: the fate of a company is only as good or bad as its leaders.’’ This scale scored a reliability alpha of .708.

584

K. J. Levine et al.

Statistical Procedures  Coding of the open-ended responses was accomplished using the SAS Text Miner software. Text Miner transforms textual data into a format that can examine and find relationships or associations among terms in the text. The software analyzes the words used by the subjects in three stages. During the parsing stage, it drops lowinformation words such as ‘‘a,’’ converts the remaining words into ‘‘terms’’ by  stemming the words to their root form, identifying their part of speech and searches for noun groups such as ‘‘clear vision.’’ Each resulting term is a word root or phrase used as a particular part of speech. During the transformation stage, the software counts the frequencies of these terms, takes its logarithm to decrease the impact of  wordy subjects and weights them using entropy. These weighted term frequencies are then analyzed using singular value decomposition (SVD), a process similar to factor analysis. The SVDs and factors can then be analyzed using traditional statistics. RQs 1 and 2 are answered by examining the factors to find the words that the subjects used most often. H1 is tested by calculating Pearson correlations among the 4 standard leadership scales. H2 is analyzed using correlations of the two sets of  measures: the standard leadership scores and the factor scores derived from the subjects’ written descriptions. This involved the use of Pearson correlations between the two sets of measures. To ensure that no linear combination of score was correlated between the two sets, canonical correlation was used. Thus, all aspects of the openended definitions of charisma can be measured against the scales that typically have been used to assess charisma. Results The goal of the first RQ is to understand the definition of the term ‘‘charisma.’’ Using the SAS Enterprise Miner program, five factors of terms were formed, relating to the idea of charisma. For a term to become part of a factor, only texts with loadings above .450 were included. The term ‘‘charisma’’ and its various derivations were the most commonly mentioned terms in the definitions themselves. After careful consideration, this self-referential term remained in the analysis, as it is helpful in understanding context within the definition. Also, verbs and articles such as ‘‘in,’’ ‘‘has,’’ ‘‘with,’’ and ‘‘makes’’ were left in the analysis to assist in putting the phrases back into a meaningful format. The first factor of terms suggested that ‘‘charisma’’ was an ability and personality trait  of a leader with an outgoing personality. This person is strong, charming, confident, humorous, understanding, is a quality individual, shows good sense, is influential, possesses  a good attitude and is a good speaker . The adjectives included in the definition are listed in the order that they appear in the SVD table, thus ‘‘strong’’ and ‘‘charming’’ scored higher in the analysis than did ‘‘influential’’ and ‘‘good attitude.’’ The second factor of terms defined charisma as the ability to listen, empathize with  and understand others. A charismatic person also is genuine  and knows when to talk  and when to listen. The third factor has the most to do with communication. Here,

Measuring Charisma  585

charisma includes the ability to speak well  and defines someone who is poised, charming, understanding and demonstrates a sense of involvement. Further, the charismatic person is a skillful speaker  and has a large vocabulary. The fourth factor incorporates many nonverbal communication attributes into the definition by suggesting that charisma is the ability to speak well  and to maintain  effective eye contact, as well as someone with a good attitude  and a genuine speaking  style. Further, a charismatic person is positive, interesting, involving and funny. The final factor listed behavioral and personality terms such as: someone who is powerful, loud, understanding, enthusiastic, and has the ability to put others at ease . RQ2 asked what communication behaviors are exhibited by a charismatic leader. A similar analysis was undertaken to understand these data. The first factor found that a charismatic leader is a good speaker, persuasive, interesting, effecting and entertaining. Further, such a leader will exhibit ease and comfort when speaking. This type of leader is  skillful, enthusiastic, motivational and humorous, able to be effective while speaking to a  group of people, appeal to a group of people, understand what people want and need, and  present ideas with confidence. In addition, this type of person is known to smile, has a  pleasant and positive vocal style and displays good body language . All of these terms had a factor loading of .50 or above. The second factor suggests that a charismatic person is persuasive, has ideas, is a  strong leader, has definite opinions and sets and achieves goals . The third factor concentrates on communication behaviors and suggests that a charismatic leader is a  perceptive and affective communicator, both verbally  and nonverbally . The fourth factor finds that a charismatic leader is task oriented, is open to group  ideas as well as ideas that are different from their own . In addition, this leader has the  knowledge and abilities to understand, speak, motivate and excite a group. Charismatic  leaders are energetic, determined yet comfortable in front of others and know how to  listen . The final factor finds that the charismatic leader communicates effectively to other  people, asks for others to share ideas and opinions , and is interested in what others think  and feel . H1 predicted that the standard measures of leadership all measure similar concepts. The Followership Scale and the Romance of Leadership Scale are unidimensional while the Conger K anuago Charisma Scale has five subscales: (1) Strategic Vision; (2) Sensitivity to the Environment; (3) Sensitivity to Members’ Needs; (4) Personal Risk; and (5) Unconventional Behavior. Pearson’s correlations were run among these measures, and the r-values ranged from .133 to .504. Of particular interest was the correlation of .442 between the two unidimensional scales, Followership and Romance of Leadership, suggesting that they are testing much the same construct: the view of charismatic leadership from the perspective of  the subordinate/follower. The Followership Scale is strongly correlated to the subdimensions of strategic vision, as well (r  .440) and sensitivity to the environment (r  .435) on the Conger Kanungo Scale. However, Followership and the personal risk subscale had a very low correlation (r  .172). Á 

0

0

Á 

0

586

K. J. Levine et al.

Due to the large sample size, all of the measures were statistically significant. As some of the correlations were low, H1 was supported in part and not supported in part (Table 1). RQ3 examined whether there would be a relationship between the behaviors that the respondents believe are enacted by charismatic leaders (RQ2) and the concepts that the standard transformational and charismatic leadership scales actually  measure. A canonical correlation was run between all the elements of the standard scales and the five SVD factors found in this analysis. The canonical correlation was selected as it is designed to assess the relationship between two sets of variables, in this case the set of standard measures and the set of SVD factors. No statistically  significant correlations between the standard measures and the SVD factors were found, and so there is no relationship between the standard scales and the components of charismatic behavior (Table 2 and 3). Discussion This study was designed to assess the measurement scales that are commonly used to test the theories of transformational and charismatic leadership. This type of inquiry  is vital for the organizational communication scholar, as our findings are only as valid and useful as the methods used to measure them. The aim is not to discount the knowledge that has been gained through the use of these existing scales, rather it is to suggest that the charismatic communication dimension of these two leadership theories has been omitted from the prior examinations. In order to truly understand leadership, this dimension should be added to future inquiries. The findings give great insight into the term ‘‘charisma.’’ As detailed above, there is little consensus on charisma’s proper definition, yet it forms the core of both transformational and charismatic leadership theories. This analysis gives an indication of some of the elements of charisma. To begin with, all of the factors included the term ‘‘ability.’’ A review of the raw data demonstrated that most respondents began their definition with ‘‘charisma is the ability. . . . ’’ The use of the term ability suggests that the respondents believe that leaders can acquire charisma, thus it is not an inborn trait that some are born with and others are not. A review of  all the factors gives no indication of charisma as unattainable for anyone. After ability, communication concepts were very prevalent within these definitions. Both verbal and nonverbal competencies are considered part of charisma. The current focus in both secondary and higher education on public speaking skills bodes well for our future leaders, as they are gaining important skills that will assist them in their chosen careers. Additionally, persuasion and influence are central to the definition of  charisma, and often these subjects are a part of the traditional communication studies curriculum. Finally, listening was mentioned many times as an aspect of  charismatic behavior. Other terms within the factors are personality traits that are highly prized in our culture: outgoing, confident, humorous, strong, charming and understanding. Most

Table 1 Correlations between standard measures of leadership Romance Romance

Pearson correlation Significance (two-tailed) N Followership Pearson correlation Significance (two-tailed) N Cksva Pearson correlation Significance (two-tailed) N Ckse Pearson correlation Significance (two-tailed) N Ckub Pearson correlation Significance (two-tailed) N CKpr Pearson correlation Significance (two-tailed) N CKsmn Pearson correlation Significance (two-tailed) N

Follower

1 . 409 .442 (**) .000 400 .350 (**) .000 404 .309 (**) .000 402 .250 (**) .000 403 .200 (**) .000 403 .311 (**) .000 403

CKsva

.442 (**) .000 400 1 . 411 .440 (**) .000 404 .435 (**) .000 404 .307 (**) .000 404 .172 (**) .001 405 .403 (**) .000 403

.350 (**) .000 404 .440 (**) .000 404 1 . 415 .499 (**) .000 409 .313 (**) .000 409 .124 (*) .012 410 .438 (**) .000 408

CKse

Ckub

CKpr

.309 (**) .000 402 .435 (**) .000 404 .499 (**) .000 409 1 . 414 .261 (**) .000 407 .133 (**) .007 409 .504 (**) .000 407

.250 (**) .000 403 .307 (**) .000 404 .313 (**) .000 409 .261 (**) .000 407 1 . 415 .540 (**) .000 409 .226 (**) .000 408

.200 (**) .000 403 .172 (**) .001 405 .124 (*) .012 410 .133 (**) .007 409 .540 (**) .000 409 1 . 416 .175 (**) .000 408

*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed). CKsva Strategic Vision; CKse Sensitivity to the Environment; CKpr Personal Risk; CKsmn Sensitivity to Members’ Needs; Ckub 0

0

0

0

0

CKsmn .311 (**) .000 403 .403 (**) .000 403 .438 (**) .000 408 .504 (**) .000 407 .226 (**) .000 408 .175 (**) .000 408 1 . 414

Unconventional Behavior

M e  a s  u r  i    n g  C  h   a r  i    s  m a 5   8   7  

588

K. J. Levine et al.

Table 2 Canonical Correlations Between Standard Measures and SVD factors Scale

SVD1

Followership Romance of Leadership CK Strategic Vision CK Sensitivity to the Environment CK Personal Risk CK Sensitivity to Members’ Needs CK Unconventional Behavior

.0614 .0470 .1053 .0722

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

SVD2 .0651 .0901 .0649 .1237

(

(

(

(

SVD3 .0017 .0223 .0587 .0086

(

(

.0550 .0222

.0256 .0016

.0060 .0403

.0054

.0022

.0199

SVD4 .0332 .0078 .0809 .0530

(

SVD5 .0220 .0242 .0001 .0682

(

(

(

(

(

.0203 .0611

(

(

.0594

(

.1031 .0795

(

.0830

(

all the terms loaded positively on the factor, suggesting that a person with charisma is well-liked and respected. The second open-ended item asked about the communication behaviors associated with charisma. These responses were more focused than for the first response, as they  incorporated most elements of communication. As above, public speaking skills were deemed very important, demonstrated by the use of phrases such as: (1) ease and comfort when speaking; (2) able to be effective and appealing in front of a group; (3) has a pleasant and positive vocal style; and (4) the ability to motivate a group. Secondly, an attention to nonverbals is important, as these are seen to work in conjunction with the verbal skills to create the charismatic image. One would likely  not be considered charismatic if they were not effective both verbally and nonverbally.

588

K. J. Levine et al.

Table 2 Canonical Correlations Between Standard Measures and SVD factors Scale

SVD1

Followership Romance of Leadership CK Strategic Vision CK Sensitivity to the Environment CK Personal Risk CK Sensitivity to Members’ Needs CK Unconventional Behavior

.0614 .0470 .1053 .0722

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

SVD2 .0651 .0901 .0649 .1237

(

(

(

(

SVD3 .0017 .0223 .0587 .0086

(

(

.0550 .0222

.0256 .0016

.0060 .0403

.0054

.0022

.0199

SVD4 .0332 .0078 .0809 .0530

(

SVD5 .0220 .0242 .0001 .0682

(

(

(

(

(

.0203 .0611

(

(

.0594

(

.1031 .0795

(

.0830

(

all the terms loaded positively on the factor, suggesting that a person with charisma is well-liked and respected. The second open-ended item asked about the communication behaviors associated with charisma. These responses were more focused than for the first response, as they  incorporated most elements of communication. As above, public speaking skills were deemed very important, demonstrated by the use of phrases such as: (1) ease and comfort when speaking; (2) able to be effective and appealing in front of a group; (3) has a pleasant and positive vocal style; and (4) the ability to motivate a group. Secondly, an attention to nonverbals is important, as these are seen to work in conjunction with the verbal skills to create the charismatic image. One would likely  not be considered charismatic if they were not effective both verbally and nonverbally. The attributes mentioned in RQ1 and RQ2 are not found within the items on the standard measurement scales. The prominence of the respondents’ description of  leaders’ attention to the follower ’s    interests, ideas and feelings was particularly  interesting. These attributes are found in some of the more recent leadership theories, such as Path-Goal (Evans, 1970) and the Psychodynamic Approach (Zaleznik, 1977) but are not components of transformational or charismatic leadership. The Romance of Leadership Scale (Meindl & Ehrlich, 1988) is designed to determine the participant’s view of (1) how important leadership is to an organization and (2) how leadership is constructed. It is surprising that this is so well correlated with the other measures, but yet not related to the behaviors of  charismatic leadership found in this study. The overall finding that the three existing leadership measurement scales correlated underscores the purpose of this inquiry. To date, numerous studies have used these Table 3 Canonical Correlations Between Standard Measurements and SVD Factors

1 2 3 4 5

Canonical correlation

Significance

.233 .191 .120 .088 .050

.164 .539 .876 .880 .824

Measuring Charisma  589

existing scales to help us understand the phenomena of leadership. These studies have provided substantial information and understanding of leadership, but only to the extent of what is included in each of the scales. However, it is evident that they do not measure charismatic communication. Without a diversity of measurement instruments or without the inclusion of all the central elements of the theories, we only  have a partial understanding of leadership and leadership behaviors. If, as suggested by the findings of the final RQ, the behaviors associated with charisma are not included in the measurement scales testing charismatic leadership, we have an incomplete picture of the theory and practice of leadership. The strength of the findings leaves little doubt that there is a problem. However, at the same time, it provides direction for future inquiry. Limitations and Ideas for Future Research  While there are certainly limitations with this study, for example the use of a convenient sample of University students, the ideas and findings are significant and hopefully will enable organizational leadership scholars to better measure, and hence understand, charisma in the future. The Theories of Transformational and Charismatic Leadership have demonstrated long staying power and have been the backbone of decades of leadership research. Adding the measurement of charismatic communication will enhance their value in assessing the concept. All of the phrases found in the factors can be used to compose a new Charismatic Communication Leadership Scale, thus filling the gap in the existing scales. These findings give researchers a new focus for their future inquiry, as these dimensions of charisma and charismatic behavior can and should be incorporated into any new measurement scales used in future research. Only by adding these components into research can we truly understand the leadership phenomenon. References Avolio, B.J., & Yammarino, F.J. (1990). Operationalizing charismatic leadership using a levels-ofanalysis framework. Leadership Quarterly , 1, 193 208. Avolio, B.J., Waldman, D.A., & Einstein, W.O. (1988). Transformational leadership in a management game simulation: Impacting the bottom line. Group and Organizational Studies , 13, 59 80. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control . New York: Freeman and Company. Barbuto, J.E. (1997). Taking the charisma out of transformational leadership. Journal of Social  Behavior & Personality., 12 , 689 697. Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations . New York: Free Press. Bass, B.M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics , 18 , 19 31. Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational  leadership . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bradford, D.L., & Cohen, A.R. (1984). Managing for excellence: The guide to developing high  performance in contemporary organizations . New York: Wiley. Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership . New York: Harper & Row. Á 

Á 

Á 

Á 

590

K. J. Levine et al.

Conger, J.A. (1989). The charismatic leader: Behind the mystique of exceptional leadership . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Conger, J.A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider’s perspective on these developing streams of research. Leadership Quarterly , 10 , 145 170. Conger, J.A., & Kanungo, R.N. (1988). Charismatic leadership . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Conger, J.A., & Kanungo, R.N. (1994). Charismatic leadership in organization: Perceived behavioral attributes and their measurement. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 15 , 439 452. Conger, J.A., & Kanungo, R.N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. De Vries, R.E. (1999). On charisma and the need for leadership. European Journal of Work and  Organizational Psychology , 8 , 109 133. Evans, M.G. (1970). The effects of supervisory behavior on the path goal relationship. Organizational Behaviors and Human Performance , 5 , 277 298. Flynn, F.J., & Staw, B.M. (2004). Lend me your wallets: The effect of charismatic leadership on external support for an organization. Strategic Management Journal , 25 , 309 330. Frese, M.B., Beimel, S., & Schoenborn, S. (2003). Action training for charismatic leadership: Two evaluations of studies of a commercial training module on inspirational communication of a vision. Personnel Psychology , 56 , 671 699. Gilbert, R.G., & Hyde, A.C. (1988). Followership and the federal worker. Public Administration  Review , 48 , 962 968. Halpert, J.A. (1990). The dimensionality of charisma. Journal of Business and Psychology , 4 , 339 410. Holladay, S.J., & Coombs, W.T. (1994). Speaking of vision and vision being spoken: An exploration of the effects of content and delivery on perceptions of leader charisma. Management  Communication Quarterly , 8 , 165 189. Hollander, E.P., & Offermann, L.R. (1990). Power and leadership in organizations: Relationships in transition. American Psychologist , 45 , 179 189. House, R.J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge  (pp. 189 207). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University  Press. Hoyt, C.L., & Ciulla, J. (2004, October). Using advanced gaming technology to teach leadership: A research-based perspective . Available from the Woodrow Wilson International Center of  Scholars. Judge, T.A., & Bono, J.E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology , 85 , 751 765. Kanter, R.M. (1983). The change masters: Innovation and entrepreneurship in the American  corporation . Simon & Schuster: New York. Kelley, R. (1992). The power of followership . New York: Doubleday. Kuhnert, K.W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: A constructive/ developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review , 12 , 648 657. Lowe, K.B., & Kroeck, K.G. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly , 7 , 385 425. Meindl, J.R., & Ehrlich, S.B. (1988). Developing a romance of leadership scale. Silver Anniversary  Proceedings, Eastern Academy of Management, Washington, DC, May. Nandal, V., & Krishnan, V.R. (2000). Charismatic leadership and self-efficacy: Importance of role clarity. Management and Labour Studies , 25 , 231 243. Panopoulos, F. (1999). Gender differences in transformational leadership among the field leaders of  New South Wales Police students. Paper presented at the Second Australasian Women and Policing Conference, Emmanuel College, University of Queensland, July, 1999. Retrieved from http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/policewomen2/Panopoulos.html Á 

Á 

Á 

Á 

Á 

Á 

Á 

Á 

Á 

Á 

Á 

Á 

Á 

Á 

Á 

Á 

Measuring Charisma  591 Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leaders, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly , 1, 107 142. Renshon, S.A. (1995). The Clinton presidency: Campaigning, governing and psychology of leadership . Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Renshon, S.A. (1996). The psychological assessment of presidential candidates . New York: New York  University Press. Seltzer, J., & Bass, B.M. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. Journal of Management , 16 , 693 703. Shamir, B. (1995). Social distance and charisma: Theoretical notes and an exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly , 6 , 19 47. Shamir, B., House, R.J., & Arthur, M.B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science , 4 , 577 594. Shea, C.M., & Howell, J.M. (1999). Charismatic leadership and task feedback: A laboratory study of  their effects on self-ef ficacy and task performance. Leadership Quarterly , 10 , 375 396. Spitzberg, B.H., & Cupach, W.R. (1984). Interpersonal communication competence . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Tejeda, M.J., Scandura, T.A., & Pillai, R. (2001). The MLQ revisited psychometric properties and recommendations. Leadership Quarterly , 12 , 31 52. Trice, H. M, & Beyer, J.M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Waldman, D.A., & Yammarino, F.J. (1999). CEO charismatic leadership: Levels-of-management and levels-of-analysis effects. The Academy of Management Review , 24 , 266 285. Waldman, D.A., Ramirez, G.G., House, R.J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal , 44 , 134 144. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization . Translated by A.M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons. New York: Oxford University Press. Yammarino, F.J., Spangler, W.D., & Bass, B.M. (1993). Transformational leadership and performance: A longitudinal investigation. Leadership Quarterly , 4 , 81 102. Yukl, G.A. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Yearly Review of    Management , 15 , 251 289. Yukl, G.A. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly , 10 , 285 305. Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review , 55 , 67 68. Á 

Á 

Á 

Á 

Á 

Á 

Á 

Á 

Á 

Á 

Á 

Á