Charismatic vs Transformational Leadership - A Comparative Essay

This essay sample essay on Similarities Between Charismatic And Transformational Leadership offers an extensive list of facts and arguments related to it. The essay’s introduction, body paragraphs and the conclusion are provided below.

Charismatic Leadership & the New Leadership Approach 1. What are the similarities and differences between charismatic and transformational leadership? A charismatic leader is a leader that makes you believe in his ideas (makes them appealing), and not just accept them, exactly like a transformational leader. He really wants the subordinates’ commitment to the company’s goals and to the leader himself.

To gain employees’ approval of himself, the charismatic leader will prove to be good at handling crowds of people, at analyzing their mood and consequently at talking to them.

He will not rely on his power as a superior or the authority it gives him, and will take personal risks, which will grant him the trust of the people he works with. On the other hand, a transformational leader, who could well be charismatic, has the objective of transforming the whole company: thing that only a charismatic leader with good intentions would want to do.

As the charismatic leader has everyone’s trust, it can be very dangerous for the organization if his priorities are not properly set and/or if they have a too high opinion of themselves and their capacities.

Charismatic And Transformational Leadership

In some cases, a leader can be so charismatic that subordinates would believe anything he says, even when it’s not the best for the company: and this is the main difference between charismatic end transformational leadership.

Get quality help now

WriterBelle

Verified

Proficient in: Human Nature

4.7 (657)

“ Really polite, and a great writer! Task done as described and better, responded to all my questions promptly too! ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

2. Read the attached excerpts from business media and consultancy presentations concerning leaders that are said to be charismatic. a. Is it correct to talk of charismatic leadership in these cases, according to the definitions of charisma found in the course literature?

Steve Jobs is obviously a leader according to the definitions of charisma we went through: he got to give Apple the image it has today, and he manages to catch everyone’s attention at every important speech/introduction of a product (products he kind of takes responsibility for because he is the one who gets to choose what will be developed). Julia Hands, I would say, is not so much of a charismatic leader as Steve Jobs. She is, undoubtedly, an efficient leader and a really good manager but her obvious shyness and discretion bother me a bit.

Last, John Stewart, is more a mix of transactional and transformational leader. b. What typical elements of charismatic leadership can you find in the texts? What elements seem to be lacking? Concerning Steve Jobs in the extract from the Economist: “the firm’s employees will continue to ask themselves “what would Steve do? ” when making decisions. ”; he’s got everyone’s trust, loyalty and awe, he is a role-model. Jobs also illustrates well the communicating skills of a charismatic leader. We can even see John Stewart’s reaction in times of crisis. c.

Are there any notable ideas about charismatic leadership that can be traced in these descriptions of leaders? Charismatic leaders motivate followers, who look up to them and consider them as especially gifted people, who take responsibility for their decisions/actions. d. Can you identify any of the potential problems with charismatic/transformational leadership pointed out in the literature? As a charismatic leader gives a company its public image and is the glue that holds teams together, that can be a problem if the said leader has to leave the company.

Who’s going to be the replacement? Could that person be as charismatic? 3. Summarize the central argument of Levay in one main sentence and develop it in three main points. What is this argument based on? In this article, the author wants to show that, even though a charismatic leader is often considered at the origin of lots of changes in the company, he may be in favor of the status quo, or the traditions (contrarily to what we can find in some of the definitions of charismatic leadership. ; he wants to show there is such a thing as “Charismatic leadership in resistance to change”. According to me, three main points are presented in this text: First, “if charismatic leadership arises in situations of change, the leader’s mission can be to propose and effect change, to resist change and propose a return to a supposedly previous state, or to resist change and defend the status quo. ”(p. 39) It is shown in the text that charismatic leaders, with all the usual characteristics we give them (strong personality, extraordinary skills, devoted followers…), can have different opinions concerning change. Second, “the likelihood of charismatic leadership arising in defense of the status quo will increase if a relatively powerful group perceives ongoing or impending change as threatening their interests and/or values. (p. 139) As people usually gather round who promises to give them what they want, if they don’t want any changes, they will “worship” someone who defends status quo. Last, “If a charismatic leader and his or her followers have effected change and realized their main goals, they are likely to resist further changes that they perceive as threatening what they have achieved in terms of their interests and/or values. ” (p. 140) Like previous point, people side by the leader who wants the same thing. The argument is based on the study of real cases of leaders opposing change. 4.

Summarize the central argument of Tourish & Pinnington in one main sentence and develop it in three main points. What is this argument based on? I think that the authors of this article want to show that transformational leadership theories “have the potential to encourage authoritarian forms of organization” and that transformational leaders are so focused on corporate cohesion that “internal dissent” (meaning the people in the company who do not agree with the majority ) is neglected. They suggest another, “less flawed”, model of transformational leadership.

First, they compare the current transformational leadership to a cult, showing that they have the same defining points (charismatic leadership, a compelling vision, common culture…); which seems to prevent people from expressing their ideas, doubts… Also, as it is the leader’s job to prepare key documents and as a whole, express the “group’s opinion”, there isn’t many opportunities for the followers to express their real opinion, and if they do so, they are “heavily penalized” for their dissent.

And, if the leader is too narcissistic/driven mad by the power he has, there can be some, more or less, important consequences for the organization: as the leader is really good at giving speeches, he may retain bad news and maximize good news, “create an illusion of control through affirming information and attributing negative outcomes to external causes. ” (p. 155) 5. Both Levay and Tourish & Pinnington discuss aspects of charismatic/transformational leadership that are more problematic than the mainstream view in leadership research.

Assuming that they are right in their arguments, can charismatic/transformational leadership still be an ideal for contemporary leaders and organizations? If we assume that such problems as those described by Levay and Tourish&Pinnington exist, in my opinion, charismatic/transformational leadership can still be ideal, because it really motivates followers, gives them an example to follow… To counteract the negative side, we could just try to establish an equivalent authority to keep an eye on those leaders and report anything suspicious to the board of directors. (without giving this authority a saying in the organizational decisions)