Title

Visionary Leadership

Sub-Title

A practical and conceptual analysis of the contributions of charismatic and transformational

approaches to leadership research in relation to their ability to inform practice within complex
organisational settings.

Abstract

This essay summarises the main focuses of leadership research in the 1980’s and 1990’s, which
given increasingly competitive, deregulated, technology led, globalised business environments
required theories of leadership which emphasises the need for quantum change and cultural
reinvention as a basis for economic success. Thus, the main focus of leadership research during
this period led to the development of charismatic and transformational theories of leadership,
which emphasised change, flexibility, creativity and reinvention at an individual, team and
organisational level as key outcomes of the leadership process. However, these theories of
leadership are not without criticism both in terms of their practical application and the soundness
of the underlying research paradigms. The work of Bass (1985, 1990, 1998), Bass & Avolio
(1985, 1990, 1994, 1995), House (1977), Conger & Kunungo (1987, 1999), Shamir et al,
(1993), Hunt (1996), Yukl (1998, 1999) amongst others is critically appraised in order to
identify the main tenets of transformational and charismatic leadership theory and to critically
evaluate their contributions to leadership research and practice.
Key Words

Leadership, Followership, Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership, Charismatic

Leadership, Full Range Leadership Model, Charisma, Idealised Influence, Inspirational
Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, Individual Consideration, Contingent Reward, Management
by Exception, Laissez-Faire, Empowerment, Multi-Functional Leadership Questionnaire, MFLQ,
Criticisms of Transformational Leadership Theory, Follower Satisfaction, Behavioural
Ambiguity, Behavioural Omissions, Dyadic Relationship, Situational Variables, Negative
Effects, Heroic Bias, Leader Dependence, Attribution Theory of Charismatic Leadership, Non-
Charismatic Leaders, Charismatic Leaders, Self-Concept Theory of Charismatic Leadership,
Personal Identification, Social Identification, Internalisation, Self-Efficacy, Criticisms of
Charismatic Leadership Theory, Nature of Charisma, Charismatic Influence Process, Essential
Behaviours, Facilitating Conditions, Organisational Effectiveness.
Transformational Leadership

The concept of transformational leadership is described in a seminal work by the political

sociologist James MacGregor Burns entitled Leadership (1978). In his work, Burns attempts to
link the roles of leadership and followership. He describes leaders as those people who tap the
motives of followers.

Transactional leadership occurs when leaders set up relationships with followers that are based
on an exchange for some resource valued by the followers. Interactions between the
transactional leader and the followers appear to be episodic, short-lived and limited to that one
particular transaction. A transactional leader balances the demands of the organisation and the
requirements of the people within the organisation.

Transformational leadership is much more complex and happens when people are engaged
together in such a way that leaders and followers encourage one another to increase levels of
motivation and morality. In such situations the aspirations of leaders and followers merge to
become one, (Bass, 1998).

Similarly, (Northhouse, 2001; McKenna, 2000) distinguishes between two types of leadership
styles:

“Transactional leadership refers to the bulk of leadership models, which focus on

the exchange that occurs between leaders and their followers. Managers who
offer promotion to employees who surpass their goals are exhibiting transactional
leadership. The exchange dimension of transactional leadership is very common
and can be observed at many levels in the organisation." (Northhouse P, 2001,
p. 132)

"In transformational leadership the emphasis is on people of vision who are

creative, innovative, and capable of getting others to share their dreams while

Transformational & Charismatic Leadership Page 1

 playing down self-interest; and who are able to cooperate with others in reshaping
the strategies and tactics of the organisation…in response to a fast-changing
world (Tichy & Devanna, 1986)… to these qualities could be added the pursuit
of high standards, taking calculated risks, challenging and changing the existing
company structure, with even the potential for the display (when considered
appropriate) of directive tendencies. (Bass, 1990)” (McKenna, 2000, p.383)

Bass (1985, 1998) provides a more expanded and refined theory of transformational leadership
which develops the work of Burns (1978) and House (1977), by giving far more attention to the
behaviour and needs of followers than had previously been given. Bass (1985, 1998) argued that
the principles of transformational leadership could be equally applied to situations where the
outcomes were not positive than those where the opposite was true and describing transactional
and transformational leadership as a singe continuum rather than mutually independent continua.
Bass (1985, 1998) identifies the main characteristics of transformational leadership as; charisma
idealised influence, intellectual stimulation and consideration of the emotional needs of each
follower, (Hunt, 1996).

Fig 1 – Transformational Leadership Continuum

Transformational Leadership Transactional Leadership Laissez-faire leadership
- Idealised Influence - Contingent Reward - Non-transaction/Non
(charisma) - Management By Exception – Leadership
- Inspirational Motivation Active
- Individual Consideration - Management By Exception -
- Intellectual Stimulation Passive
[Source: Adapted from Northouse P, 2001, p.136; Bass B, 1998, p.7-9]

In developing his model of transformational leadership Bass (1985) built upon earlier
charismatic literature and it is not surprising that House’s (1977) model of charismatic
leadership is often mistakenly identified as an archetype of transformational leadership. Weber
(1947) describes charisma as a special personality characteristic that gives a person superhuman
or exceptional powers and is reserved for a few, is of divine origin, and results in the person
being treated as a leader. In addition to displaying certain personality characteristics, charismatic
leaders also demonstrate specific types of behaviours:
they are strong role models for the beliefs and values they want their followers to adopt,

Transformational & Charismatic Leadership Page 2

 they appear competent to their followers,
they articulate ideological goals which have moral overtones,
they communicate high expectations for followers, and they exhibit confidence in
follower’s abilities to meet these expectations. The impact of this behaviour is to
increase followers’ sense of competence and self-efficacy, which in turn increases their
performance,
they arouse task-relevant motives in followers that may include affiliation, power or
esteem.

Fig 2– Charismatic Leadership Characteristics

Personality Characteristics Behaviours Effects on Followers
Dominant Sets strong role model Trust in leader’s ideology
Desire to influence Shows competence Belief similarity between
leader and follower

Confident Articulates goals Unquestioning acceptance

Strong Values Communicates high Affection towards leader
expectations
Expresses confidence Obedience
Arouses motives Identification with leader
Emotional involvement
Heightened goals
Increased confidence

[Source: Adapted from Northouse, 2001, p.133; Hunt 1996, p.189-190]

Hunt (1996) provides a clear synopsis of the differences between Bass’s (1985) theory of
transformational leadership and the earlier work of (Burns, 1978; House, 1977):
Bass (1985) emphasised an expansion of the followers’ portfolio of needs and wants with
a firm focus on the need for growth, development and self-actualisation,
Bass (1985) allowed for positive and negative transformations, that is transformations
that lead to organisational failure or ethically undesirable outcomes,
Bass (1985) unlike Burns (1978) does not view transformational and transactional
leadership as opposite ends of the same continuum, but views transformational leadership
as higher order (extraordinary) leadership which goes beyond the transactions found in
everyday management,

Transformational & Charismatic Leadership Page 3

 Bass (1985) considers that transformational leadership consists of four factors; idealised
influence (or charisma), individual consideration, inspirational motivation and intellectual
stimulation. Thus charisma is an important element of transformational leadership but
unlike House’s (1977) theory is not considered to be sufficient in itslef,
Bass (1985) considers that transactional leadership behaviours are based on two
dimensions namely, contingent reward and management-by-exception.

Explanation of Transformational Leadership Behaviours

Bass’s (1985, 1990, 1998) theory of transformational leadership identifies four dimensions of
transformational leadership behaviour, namely; idealised influence (or charisma), individual
consideration, inspirational motivation and intellectual stimulation.

Charismatic leadership (CL) or Idealised Influence (II) describes leaders who act as strong
role models for followers. Followers identify with these leaders and want very much to emulate
them. These leaders usually have very high standards of moral and ethical conduct can be
counted on to do the right thing. They are deeply respected by followers, who usually place a
great deal of trust in them. They provide followers with a vision and a sense of mission.

"Transformational leaders behave in ways that result in them being role models
for their followers. The leaders are admired, respected and trusted. Followers
identify with the leaders and want to emulate them; leaders are endowed by their
followers as having extraordinary capabilities, persistence, and determination.
The leaders are willing to take risks and are consistent rather than arbitrary. They
can be counted on to do the right thing, demonstrating high standards of ethical
and moral conduct." (Bass B, 1998, p.5)

Inspirational Motivation describe leaders who communicate high expectations to followers,

inspiring them through motivation to become committed to and a part of the shared vision in the
organisation. In practice, leaders use symbols, clearly communicated expectations and emotional

Transformational & Charismatic Leadership Page 4

appeals to focus the group members’ efforts to achieve more that they would in their own self-
interest. This type of leadership enhances team spirit.

"Transformational leaders behave in ways which motivate and inspire those

around them by providing meaning and challenge to their followers' work. Team
spirit is aroused. Enthusiasm and optimism are displayed. Leaders get followers
involved in envisioning attractive future states; they create clearly communicated
expectations that followers want to meet and also demonstrate commitment to
goals and the shared vision." (Bass B, 1998, p.5)

Intellectual Stimulation includes leadership that stimulates followers to be creative and

innovative, and to challenge their own beliefs and values as well as those of the leader and the
organisation. This type of leadership supports followers as they try new approaches to issues. It
promotes followers thinking things out on their own and engaging in careful problem solving and
reasonable risk taking. (Northouse, 2001; Hunt, 1996)

"Transformational Leaders stimulate their follower's efforts to be innovative and

creative by questioning assumptions, re-framing problems and approaching old
situations in new ways. Creativity is encouraged - there is no public criticism of
individual members' mistakes. New ideas and creative problem solutions are
solicited from followers, who are included in the process of addressing problems
and finding solutions. Followers are encouraged to try new approaches, and their
ideas are not criticised because they differ from the leader's ideas." (Bass B, 1998,
p.6)

Individual Consideration describes leaders who provide a supportive climate in which they
listen carefully to the individual needs of followers. “Leaders act as coaches and advisors while
trying to assist individuals in becoming fully actualised. These leaders may use delegation as a
means to help followers grow through personal challenges.” (Northouse, 2001, p.138)

Transformational & Charismatic Leadership Page 5

Bass’s (1985, 1990, 1998) theory of transformational leadership identifies two dimensions of
transactional leadership behaviour, namely; contingent reward and management by exception of
which they are two forms active and passive.

Contingent Reward describes behaviour which supports an exchange process between leaders
and followers in which effort by the followers is exchanged for specific rewards. For this
behaviour to be successful the leader identifies what needs to be done and negotiates agreement
with followers on what the rewards will be for achievement of the task(s) or compliance with
organisational vision/mission.

Management by Exception (MBE) describes behaviour, which is concerned with the detection
and correction of errors. The active form of MBE is characterised by a leader who walks the job
and continually checks up on followers and provides feedback leading to corrective action,
which prevents mistakes or deviations occurring. The passive form of MBE is characterised by a
leader who takes no corrective action until mistakes have occurred.

The final dimension of leadership behaviour is Laissez Faire Leadership; this is recognition by
Bass (1985, 1990, 1998) that some leaders adopt a totally ‘hands-off’ approach, give no
feedback to followers, abdicate responsibility for decision making, make little effort to help
followers satisfy needs showing “passive indifference to the task and subordinates”, (Yukl,
1998, p.326)

A Full Range Model of Transformational Leadership

(Bass 1985, 1990, 1998; Bass & Avolio 1994) claim that fundamental to understanding the
concept of transformational leadership is an appreciation that every leader displays each of the
above leadership factors to some extent. An optimal leadership profile resulting in commitment
to organisational change and reinvention is illustrated in fig 3 on page 7. The horizontal active
dimension is self-evident, the vertical dimensions are based on empirical evidence. The third
dimension (Depth) represents how frequently a leader displays a particular style of leadership.

Transformational & Charismatic Leadership Page 6

 Fig 3 – The Full Range Model of Transformational Leadership
[Source: Adapted from Bass, 1998, p.8]
Effective

4Is

CR

Passive Active
MBE
-A

MBE
-P
Frequency
LF

Ineffective

The leader with an optimal transformational profile infrequently displays laissez

faire (LF) leadership and leadership predicated on management by exception
(MBE-P, MBE-A) or contingent reward (CR) and frequently uses styles of
leadership associated with the (4Is of Transformational leadership) ie: Idealised
Influence (II) or (Charismatic Leadership (CL)), Inspirational Motivation (IM),
Intellectual Stimulation (IS) and Idealised Consideration (IC).

Transformational & Charismatic Leadership Page 7

Criticisms of Transformational Leadership Theory

The recent ascendancy of models of charismatic and transformational leadership place a strong
emphasis on emotions, values and the importance of symbolic behaviour on the part of the leader
in order to communicate new found meaning to followers and to facilitate self-sacrificing
behaviour in the pursuit of supposedly shared objectives. In summary the transformational and
charismatic leadership theories of Burns (1978), Bass & Avolio (1985, 1990), Tichy &
Devanna (1986, 1990), House (1977), Conger & Kanungo (1987) amongst others provide
conceptual frameworks aimed at explaining how a leader is able to provide exceptional influence
in order that followers commit to difficult objectives, make self-sacrifices and achieve beyond
their initial expectations.

Whilst all of the above researchers describe the positive aspects of these theories Yukl (1999)
provides a concise critique of the conceptual weaknesses in these theories. In relation to
transformational leadership theory (Yukl, 1999; Shamir & Howell, 1999) argue that the
research of Bass & Avolio (1985, 1990) which has generated most research data, uses a Multi-
Functional Leadership Questionnaire (MFLQ) to identifying and differentiate between two
distinct types of leadership behaviours, those associated with Transformational Leadership which
include idealised influence (charisma), individualised consideration, intellectual stimulation and
inspirational motivation, and those associated with transactional leadership which includes
contingent reward behaviours and, active and passive management by exception. Yukl (1999)
cites the work of Bass (1996) in arguing that whilst many studies support the proposed
distinction between transformational and transactional behaviour other studies point to a number
of discrepancies and cites research by (Den Hartog, Van Muijen & Koopman, 1997; Lievens,
Van Geit & Coetsier, 1997; Yammarino & Bass, 1990) which provides evidence to suggest
that laissez-fair leadership and passive management by exception form a separate factor rather
than loading on transactional leadership and that positive reward behaviour loads on
transformational factor rather than the postulated transactional factor.

Transformational & Charismatic Leadership Page 8

The work of Bass & Avolio (1985, 1990) and Bass (1996) strongly suggests that
transformational leadership is most effective in bringing about individual and organisational
change and facilitating high levels of follower motivation, job satisfaction and performance.
However, Yukl (1999) cites a meta-analytical review by Lowe, Kroeck & Sivasubramaniam
(1996) of 39 studies using the MFLQ which showed that whilst transformational behaviours
correlated positively with follower satisfaction and performance so did transactional behaviours
associated with the use of contingent rewards, although the correlations were weaker and less
consistent.

(Shamir & Howell, 1999; Hunt, 1991; Yukl 1998, 1999) argue that the discrepancies in
research data can be accounted for in terms of the following conceptual weaknesses in the
original theory:

Ambiguity in relation to Transformational behaviours: each of the transformational behaviours

contains diverse components, which makes the identification and categorisation of behaviours
problematic, resulting in high inter-correlations between the behaviours which in turn casts doubt
on their original construction, which was largely inductive in nature and not grounded in theory.
(Shamir & Howell, 1999; Yukl 1999) provides the following examples in support of this
argument;

Individual Consideration; this scale includes both the leadership behaviours of supporting
and developing, which arguably have distinct and different effects on followers. It is
reasonable to treat developing as a core transformational behaviour as it includes
coaching and mentoring which are likely to increase the skills of followers and lead to
increased self-efficacy. However, supporting involves being friendly, helpful considerate
and appreciative of followers which in turn is likely to lead to increased appreciation of
the leader but have little effect on skill development. Such behaviours could be more
accurately categorised as transactional as leader appreciation is exchanged for follower
satisfaction, which does not necessarily result in increased performance.
Intellectual Stimulation is characterised by a leader causing a follower to question their
beliefs, look at a problem in another way and risk themselves in its solution. The key

Transformational & Charismatic Leadership Page 9

 issue here is that the theoretical perspectives of Bass & Avolio (1985, 1990) do not
provide a clear framework for what the leader needs to do in reality to influence the
cognitive processing of followers in order to engender creativity, (Yukl, 1999)
Idealised Influence is a difficult behavioural construct to define examples may include,
strong emotional expression of beliefs, emphasising the importance of followers’ beliefs
and/or core competencies, actions consistent with espoused beliefs (role modelling), and
emphasising the importance of mutual trust. However, idealised influence is also
characterised by attributed charisma (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Bass, 1996) which is
an outcome of the leadership process determined by followers rather than an observable
leadership behaviour. To complicate the picture further many of the observable
behaviours associated with Idealised Influence could also be associated with
Inspirational Motivation.

Ambiguity in relation to transactional behaviours: transactional leadership is characterised by

leader-subordinate exchange (Bass & Avolio, 1985, 1990; Burns 1978), according to (Shamir
& Howell, 1999; Yukl, 1998, 1999) the theory fails to make a definitive link between the
exchange process and transactional leadership behaviours. Thus, transactional leadership can be
regarded as “a diverse collection of (mostly ineffective) leadership behaviours that lack a clear
common denominator” (Yukl, 1999, p.289).

Contingent Reward behaviours are characterised by an exchange process eg exchange of

financial rewards for desired follower behaviour, providing recognition to subordinates
etc. Whilst the former is more clearly an example of transactional leadership the latter
could also be considered a construct of transformational leadership behaviour leading to
increased efficacy of followers.
Active Management By Exception (MBE-A) is defined by leadership behaviour which is
concerned with actively identifying mistakes or enforcing procedures to avoid mistakes –
in essence MBE-A is concerned with exercise of managerial control. The MFLQ scale
items do not measure what the leader actual does to rectify the mistake and the inference
is that this is done primarily by negative reinforcement. (Yukl, 1999; Shamir & Howell,
1999) argue that the active rectifying of mistakes could equally be argued to be consistent

Transformational & Charismatic Leadership Page 10

 with transformational leadership behaviours especially if the emphasis is on the positive
reinforcement and follower development.
Passive Management By Exception (MBE-P) is defined by leadership behaviour which
waits until the performance of subordinates is so poor that it is effecting the operational
efficiency of the organisation and/or work team before responding to them (Bass &
Avolio, 1990), (Yukl, 1998) argues that this is a reactive behaviour which does not in
itself involve an exchange process. Additionally, Yukl (1999) argues that MFLQ scale
items fail to describe how the leader deals with problems and do not measure the use of
contingent punishment/negative reinforcement which in reality is an important exchange
process.

Omission of Important Behaviours: according to Yukl (1999) core transformational behaviours

at the dyadic level should include inspiring (infusing work with meaning), developing
(enhancing follower skills and self-confidence/efficacy), and empowering (providing significant
voice and discretion to followers). He goes on to argue that at a group level transformational
behaviours should include facilitating agreement about objectives and strategies, facilitating
mutual trust and co-operation, and building group identify and efficacy.

“Since the theory deals primarily with dyadic processes, it is not surprising that
there is better coverage of transformational behaviours at the dyadic level than at
the group and organisational level. Inspiring and developing are well represented
in the MFLQ. However, important empowering behaviours such as consulting,
delegating, and sharing of sensitive information are not directly represented in the
MFLQ. Bass (1996) has contended that transformational and transactional
leadership can be either directive (autocratic) or participative, but this is a weak
argument for excluding behaviours that seem so directly relevant to the influence
process underlying transformational leadership. Participation and delegation
involve internalisation when feelings of ownership for a decision link it more
closely to a follower’s self concept and self worth.” (Yukl, 1999, p.290)

Transformational & Charismatic Leadership Page 11

Overall most theories of transformational leadership emphasise a dyadic relationship between
leader and followers and are not conceptualised to explain the leader’s influence over work
teams and associated process including: how work is organised and resources utilised to meet
objectives, how inter-group relationships are facilitated, how group processes are reviewed, how
mutual trust and co-operation amongst group members is engendered, the extent that group
members identify with the group, how resources are procured and used, and how external
relations between the group and the wider organisational environment are developed and
maintained, (Yukl, 1998, 1999; Shamir & Howell, 1999).

Insufficient Specification of Situational Variables: (Bass & Avolio, 1985, 1990; Bass, 1996,
1997, 1998) argue strongly that transformational leadership theory can be applied in all situations
and that the outcomes are largely the same. (Yukl, 1998) cites the research of (Bass, 1985,
1996; Pawar & Eastman, 1997; Pettigrew 1988) in suggesting that situational variables may
moderate the effect of transformational leadership on followers. Shamir & Howell (1999) cite
the research of (Bass, 1995, 1996; Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Bommer, 1996) in suggesting that
such variables may include; an unstable environment, an organic structure as opposed to a
bureaucracy, an entrepreneurial culture, and the dominance of boundary spanning units over a
technical core. Due to the high inter-correlations between transformational behaviours the
MFLQ does not provide a valid mechanism for testing the effects of situational variables on the
effectiveness of transformational leadership.

Insufficient Identification of Negative Effects: Transformational leadership theories of Bass &

Avolio, 1990; Bass, 1996, 1997, 1998; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Kouzes & Posner, 1987) do not
identify any specific negative effects of transformational leadership. (Yukl, 1998) citing the
research of Harrison (1987) argues that followers can be transformed to such a high degree of
emotional involvement in their work that they can easily become burnt out in an attempt to
constantly meet the highly idealised expectations which form the basis of the leaders original
vision. According to Conger (1989) the liabilities of transformational leadership have been
largely overlooked, probably as a consequence of such leaders being viewed as such a positive
force, but makes the important point that the dyadic nature of transformational leadership make it
more likely that a dependent or counter-dependent relationship between leader and follower

Transformational & Charismatic Leadership Page 12

results. (Shamir & Howell, 1999; Conger, 1989) state that at an organisational level the
emergence of multiple transformational leaders with differing, often competing visions can result
in role ambiguity and conflict amongst followers. Yukl (1999) cites research by Porter &
Bigley (1997) which indicates that where strongly transformational leaders are identified with
specific organisational sub-business units, this can invoke strong cultural attachment to the needs
of the organisational substructure, and this can be detrimental to the overall performance of the
organisation.

Transformational leadership has a heroic bias: given the central importance of idealised
influence (charisma) in developing a transformational vision, which encourages self-sacrifice
and exceptional performance amongst followers. This can be argued to be a projection of the
leaders needs onto followers and characteristic of a process which at best could be described as
transactional and probably more accurately described as managerial manipulation leading to
increased control. Thus, this perspective views follower performance as dependent on the leader
and assumes that given a particular context an individual with the prerequisite skills required to
influence the work team can be found. An alternative perspective would view ‘heroic’
leadership as the ability to engender shared problem solving in an attempt to engender
organisational adaptability to changing environmental stimuli. Whilst according to (Yukl, 1998,
1999) the transformational leadership theory proposed by Burns (1978) would support the latter
perspective more than most, all theories of transformational leadership would benefit from a
more explicit description of the leadership process which takes into account the importance of
shared leadership within groups.

Yukl (1998) provides a thoughtful summary in relation to the contribution of transformational

leadership theory in contributing to an overall understanding of the leadership process and states:

“The distinction between transformational and transactional leadership was useful

in the 1980’s for focussing more attention on important aspects of leadership that
had been neglected previously, but some researchers have come to regard it as a
general theory that can explain leadership in any context. Relying on a simplistic

Transformational & Charismatic Leadership Page 13

 two-factor model to interpret complex phenomena is always risky, and the end
result may be to limit rather than increase understanding.” (Yukl, 1998, p.341)

Charismatic Leadership

One of the earliest theories of charismatic leadership in organisations was developed by House
(1977), in order to explain leadership in terms of a set of testable observable processes. His
theory argued that not only were certain leadership behaviours associated with charisma but also
certain personality traits and situational variables, (Conger, 1999). These are summarised in
fig 4.

Fig 4 - House’s (1977) – Charismatic Leadership Theory

Personality Traits
 Charismatic leaders are likely to have a strong need for power, high self-confidence and a strong
conviction in their own beliefs.
Observable Behaviours
 Charismatic leaders are likely to model desirable behaviours and readily engage in behaviours
deigned to impress followers and reinforce their own competence.
 Charismatic leaders are likely to articulate appealing visions, which are rooted in the shared
ideology and core competencies of the group, and which provide a mechanism for meeting the
aspirational needs of their followers.
 Charismatic leaders are likely to communicate high expectations to their followers whilst
simultaneously signalling their belief in the competence of their followers to realise the stated
expectations. This behaviour reinforces the attainability of the leader’s expectations.
 Charismatic leaders are likely to reinforce motivational forces relevant to the needs of followers
and the context such as; recognition of achievement in complex challenging environments
requiring innovation, personal risk taking and persistent effort, attention to group processes in
tasks requiring group working and shared problem solving in response to followers’ needs for
affiliation, need for power in tasks requiring competition.
Situational Variables – Facilitating Conditions
 An environment which allows the leader to define task roles in ideological terms which will
appeal to the motives and emotional values of followers.

[Source: Adapted from (Yukl, 1998, p.299-300, Hunt, 1996, p.187)]

Attribution Theory of Charismatic Leadership – Conger & Kunungo (1987)

Conger & Kunungo (1987) developed a theory of charismatic leadership based on the premise
that charisma is an attributional phenomena.

Transformational & Charismatic Leadership Page 14

 "Thus, charisma [and thus charismatic leadership] must be viewed as an
attribution made by followers. This is consistent with the assumption stated
earlier that leadership is a rational and attributional phenomenon. The leadership
role behaviours displayed by a person make that individual (in the eyes of the
followers) not only a task leader or a social leader and a participative or directive
leader but also a charismatic or non-charismatic leader. The leader's observable
behaviours can be interpreted by his or her own followers. These dispositional
attributes are inferred from the leader's observable behaviour in the same way as
other styles of leadership that have been identified previously (Blake & Mounton,
1964, Fielder, 1967, Hersey & Blanchard, 1977). In this sense, charisma can be
considered an additional inferred dimension of leadership behaviour or an
additional leadership role." (Conger & Kanungo, 1999, p.48)

According to the theory follower attribution of leadership charisma is determined by the leader’s
behaviour, skill and the situation, (Yukl, 1999). Conger & Kunungo (1987, 1999) developed a
questionnaire known as the ‘C-K scale’ based on the variables in their charismatic theory.
According to Shamir & Howell (1999) their validation studies indicated moderately good
support for the overall measure of charismatic behaviour and the inter-correlations amongst the
sub-scales were much lower than for (Bass & Avolio’s, 1985, 1990) multi-functional leadership
questionnaire. Thus, suggesting that the charismatic behaviours had been clearly and distinctly
defined by the C-K scale. Fig 14 summarises the characteristics of the main components and
variables relating to Conger & Kunungo’s (1987, 1999) theory of charismatic leadership.

Transformational & Charismatic Leadership Page 15

 Fig 5 Conger & Kunnungo’s (1987) Theory of Charismatic Leadership

Leader Traits and Behaviours

 Charisma is likely to be attributed to leaders who articulate an achievable, ideologically appealing
vision, which is highly discrepant from the status quo.
 Charisma is likely to be attributed to leaders who behave in an unconventional and innovative
manner to achieve the vision, which often involves modelling desirable, value based behaviours
at great personal risk to the leader.
 Charisma is likely to be attributed to leaders who make great personal sacrifices in order to
achieve goals. Given that trust is an important component of charisma, followers are likely to
have more trust in a leader who is motivated by the values and ideology inherent in the vision
than in self-serving behaviours.
 Charismatic leaders are enthusiastic, confident and often posses expert power, but they are careful
not to intellectually distance themselves from their followers.
 Charismatic leaders are extremely effective communicators and are exceptionally good at
articulating the shortcomings associated with the status quo in order to build an idealistically
appealing picture of an attainable future state. (Followers are more likely to attribute charisma to
leaders who use persuasion and idealistic appeal than those who exercise authoritarian power).
 Charismatic leaders tend to be able to make a realistic assessment of the environment as a basis
for developing a vision.

Influence Process
 The primary influence process is that of personal identification, which stems from the needs of
followers to emulate and please the leader – this can in extreme cases lead to idolisation. Thus,
leader approval becomes a measure of followers’ self-worth.
 Leadership approval is expressed in terms of praise and recognition of follower accomplishments,
which in turn provides further motivation to behave in accordance with the leaders’ expectations.
 As new follower behaviours become socially validated, the values underlying these behaviours
become internalised and previously held values are discarded, as they viewed as no longer
supporting the new behavioural norms.

Facilitating Conditions/Situational Contingency

 Follower disenchantment with the status quo – charismatic leadership is more likely during times
of crisis or great change. (However, in the absence of an identifiable crisis a charismatic leader
may still be able create follower disenchantment through the strength of the vision, or even by
precipitating a crisis or potential threat – as the impact of unconventional strategies is greater
when followers perceive that conventional approaches will no longer be effective).

[Source: Adapted from (Yukl, 1998, p.302-303, Hunt, 1996, p.187)]

According to (Conger & Kunnungo, 1999) the leadership behaviours involved in the process of
moving organisational members from an existing status-quo towards the achievement of long-
term goals may be represented in terms of a three stage model, leading to outcomes at an
Organisational, Group and Individual (Follower) Level which reinforce followers' attributions of
charismatic leadership.

Transformational & Charismatic Leadership Page 16

In the first stage the leader critically evaluates the existing situation or status quo. Deficiencies
in the status quo or poorly exploited opportunities in the environment lead to the formulation of
future goals. The leader will need to assess the inclinations, the abilities, the needs and the level
of satisfaction with the present state experienced by followers.

The second stage is concerned with the formulation and articulation of goals, in this stage the
leader will need to develop and communicate a powerful, engaging and realistic vision in order
to define an idealised but achievable future state. The third stage is concerned with the leader
demonstrating to his/her followers how the future goals inherent in the vision can be achieved.
Within this staged module of the influence process Conger & Kanungo (1999) distinguished at
each stage between the behaviours associated with charismatic and non-charismatic leaders.

"This model, however, nicely simplifies and approximates this dynamic process
[leadership] and allows us to more effectively construct the differences between
charismatic and non-charismatic leadership. The reader should simply keep in
mind that, in reality, a leader is constantly moving back and fourth between the
stages or engaging in them simultaneously." (Conger & Kanungo, 1999, p.49)

Transformational & Charismatic Leadership Page 17

 Fig 6- A Staged Model of Charismatic Leadership

LEADER BEHAVIOUR OUTCOMES

Stage 1: Evaluation Stage 2: Formulation Stage 3: Means to Organisational or Group Level
of Status Quo (Present and Articulation of Achieve Outcomes:
State) Organisational Goals • High internal cohesion
• Assessment of • Formulation of • By personal • Low internal conflict
environmental environmental example; risk taking; • High value congruence
resources/constraints opportunities into a and counter-cultural • High consensus
and follower needs strategic vision empowering, and
impression Individual (Follower) Outcomes
Effective articulation Effective articulation of management • In relation to the leader
inspirational vision that practices, leader  Reverence for the
Realisation of is highly discrepant from conveys goals, leader
deficiencies in status the status quo yet within demonstrates means  Trust in the leader
quo latitude of acceptance to achieve, builds  Satisfaction with the
follower trust, and leader
motivates followers.
• In relation to the task
 Work group cohesion
 High task performance
 High level of empowerment

[Source: Conger J A & Kanungo R B, 1999, p.40]

Transformational & Charismatic Leadership Page 18

 Fig 7 - Attributes of Charismatic & Non-Charismatic Leaders (Conger & Kanungo, 1999, p.51)
Stage 1: Evaluation of Status
Quo (Present State)
Environmental sensitivity
Relation to status quo
Stage 2: Formulation and
Articulation of Organisational
Goals
Future Goals
Likeableness
Articulation
Stage 3: Means to achieve
Behaviour novelty
Trustworthiness
Expertise
Non-Charismatic Leaders Charismatic Leaders
Low need for environmental High need for environmental
sensitivity to maintain status quo sensitivity to change the status
Essentially agrees with status quo
quo and strives to maintain it Essentially opposes status quo
and strives to change it
Goals not discrepant from status Idealised vision that is highly
quo discrepant from status quo
Shared perspective and idealised
Shared perspective makes vision make him or her likeable
him/her likeable and worthy of identification and
imitation.
Weak articulation of goals and Strong and/or inspirational
motivation to lead articulation of future vision and
motivation to lead.
Conventional, conforming to Unconventional or counter-
existing norms. normative
Disinterested advocacy in Passionate advocacy, incurring
persuasion attempts. great personal risk and cost.
Expert in using available means Expert in using unconventional
to achieve goals within the means to transcend the existing
framework of the existing order. order

Influence Strategy Positional power and personal Personal power (based on expert
Power base usage power (based on reward and/or power; respect and admiration
expert power, and liking for a for a unique hero).
friend who is a similar other).

A Self-Concept Theory of Charismatic Leadership – Shamir, House &

Arthur (1993)

(Shamir, House & Arthur, 1993) developed earlier charismatic theories of leadership in
order to more adequately explain why charismatic leaders are able to influence followers so
that they are motivated to transcend their own self-interest for the sake of the organisation.
This theory is based on the self-concept theory of motivation proposed by Shamir (1991), the
assumptions underpinning this theory as cited by (Thompson & McHugh, 1995) are that:

Transformational & Charismatic Leadership Page 19

 Humans are not only goal orientated but also self expressive. They choose to spend
time in situations that allow them to express their dispositions, attitudes and self-
conceptions.
People are motivated to maintain and enhance their self-esteem and self-worth. This
is reflected in that, ‘both competence standards and cultural values are internalised
into the self-concept in the form of evaluative standards’
‘People are motivated to retain and increase their sense of self-consistency’. ‘In a
sense, the self concept is an ideology that people attempt to express and validate in
their behaviour’
‘Self-concepts are composed, in part, of identities’. ‘People derive meaning from
being linked to social collectives through their identities
‘Self-concept related behaviour is not always related to clear expectations or
immediate and specific goals’ They may be motivated by faith and ‘the imagined
possibilities of self’. (Shamir, 1991, p.411-415 as cited by Thompson & McHugh,
1995, p.308)

Hence, general job motivation is hypothesised to be determined by the extent to which an

individual’s self-concept is congruent with their current job and its situational context. Job
related identities are viewed as central to self-concept but other identities such as national,
ethnic, religious and family identities need also to be acknowledged. (Shamir, 1991 as cited
by Thompson & McHugh, 1995). According to (Shamir et al, 1993) the factors that enable
charismatic leaders to exert a motivational influence over followers are:

Personal Identification

As with Conger & Kunungo (1987), Shamir’s et al, (1993) theory recognises that for some
followers personal identification with a charismatic leader may occur. (Yukl, 1998;
Northouse, 2001).

Social Identification

Shamir’s et al., (1993) theory differs from other charismatic theories of leadership in that it
acknowledges that social identification in terms of defining oneself in terms of membership

Transformational & Charismatic Leadership Page 20

of a group and/or position in a wider social system is more important than personal
identification. When social identification is strong, individual members will be prepared to
put the interests of the group above individual needs and make self-sacrifices in order to
achieve group objectives and maintain group norms. Over a period of time such behaviours
result in the strengthening of shared values and the development of core competencies and a
shared culture.

Internalisation

Shamir et al., (1993) view internalisation as an essential process in charismatic leadership,

essentially charismatic leaders either influence follower’s to embrace new values, or more
commonly increase the salience of existing follower values and link these to task objectives,
(McKenna, 1995). If leaders are able to articulate organisational goals and/or task objectives
in ideological terms which reflect the values of their followers, then attainment of such
objectives become a mechanism for followers to express their values and social identities,
thus, motivation is increased as self-concept is made congruent with the identities of the job
and the situational context, (Shamir, 1991). This may ultimately result in followers viewing
their work role as inseparably linked to their self-concept, and will undertake that role
because it represents who they are. (Yukl G, 1998)

Self-Efficacy

Shamir et al., (1993) view the self-efficacy of followers, as the self-directed belief and
competence to attain difficult task objectives based on an ability to autonomously construct
new meaning from existing structures of professional and social knowledge. Collective self-
efficacy refers to the “perception of group members that they can accomplish exceptional
feats by working together”, (Yukl G, 1998, p.306). Charismatic leaders develop self and
group efficacy by communicating high expectations to followers, expressing belief in
followers ability to attain them and by celebrating achievement.

Facilitating Conditions

Shamir et al., (1993) identify the following facilitating conditions:

Transformational & Charismatic Leadership Page 21

 Motivational effects of leadership are likely to occur when the leaders vision is
congruent with existing follower values and personal identities.
The emergence of a charismatic leader is more likely if the organisation has a vision
which can be linked to the core values and personal identities of followers.
Charismatic leadership is more likely to occur in situations where tasks are
unstructured and where performance objectives are difficult to establish and outcomes
of work difficult to measure.
According to Shamir et al (1993) whilst crisis conditions are not a prerequisite for
charismatic leadership it is more likely to occur when the survival of the organisation
is at stake, as such situations favour a leader who is able to apply unconventional
thinking in developing a strategy to ensure survival and a new adaptive relationship
with the environment as a new culture is forged.

Fig 8 Comparison of Charismatic Leadership Theories on Explicit Features

(Source: Summarised from (Yukl, 1998, p.309)

Attribute House (1977) Conger & Shamir et al.,

Kunungo, (1993)
(1987, 1999)
Influence Process
Personal Identification Yes Yes Yes
Value Internalisation Yes Yes Yes
Social Identification No No Yes
Enhanced Self-Efficacy Yes No Yes
Leader Behaviours
Innovative Visioning Yes Yes Yes
Unconventional Behaviour No Yes Yes
Impression Management Yes Yes Yes
Self-sacrificing and personal risk taking No Yes Yes
Model Behaviour(s) to imitate Yes Yes Yes
Show confidence in followers Yes Yes Yes
Enhance team identity No No No
Power Sharing No No Yes
Facilitating Conditions
Crisis or disenchantment Yes Yes Yes
Complex, significant task Yes No Yes

Transformational & Charismatic Leadership Page 22

Criticisms of Charismatic Leadership Theory

Shamir & Howell (1999) and Yukl (1998, 1999) both provide insightful critiques relating to
the conceptual and practical liabilities of charismatic leadership and may be summarised as
follows:

Ambiguity about the nature of Charisma: Yukl (1999) cites Bryman (1993) in arguing that
all theorists offer a different definition of the nature of charisma and the associated processes
of charismatic leadership. Conger & Kunungo (1987, 1999) argue that the attributions of
charisma are determined jointly by the leader, followers and the situation. Whereas, House
(1977) and Shamir et al., (1993) define charismatic leadership in terms of how the leader
influences follower attitudes and motivation, regardless of whether followers consider the
leader to be extraordinary.

Ambiguity about the Underlying Influence Processes: Conger & Kunungo (1987) emphasise
the importance of personal identity as the primary mechanism of influence. However,
Conger & Kunungo (1999) argue that whilst in the early stages of what is essentially a
dyadic relationship personal identity is the primary mechanism of influence, as the
relationship develops internalisation becomes an important influencing factor. Whereas,
Shamir et al., (1993) emphasise social identification, self-efficacy and internalisation, as
well as personal identity as influence processes.

Overemphasis on Dyadic Processes: As with transformational leadership theory, charismatic

leadership theories are usually conceptualised at the dyadic level and group processes are not
considered to be contingent variables.

Ambiguity about Essential Behaviours: (Shamir & Howell, 1999; Yukl, 1998, 1999) argue
that whilst the charismatic leadership behaviours associated in their recent theory of
charismatic leadership (Conger & Kunungo, 1999) are consisted with their earlier research
comparing charismatic to non-charismatic leadership, (Conger & Kunungo, 1987).
Whereas, the theory proposed by Shamir et al., (1993) includes a set of behaviours derived
from House’s (1977) theory but also some borrowed from transformational theories. Yukl
(1999) goes on to argue that the link between the behaviours and the explanatory processes

Transformational & Charismatic Leadership Page 23

are not always clear and that some of these behaviours seem easier to justify on the grounds
of leadership effectiveness than any sound conceptual link to charisma.

Insufficient Specification of Facilitating Conditions: According to (Shamir & Howell, 1999;

Yukl, 1998, 1999) contextual variables are especially important to charismatic leadership,
because the characteristics of exceptional leadership are very rare and seem to be highly
dependent of exceptional circumstances. (Conger & Kunungo, 1999) argue that charismatic
leadership is more likely to occur under conditions of uncertainty, when the organisation is in
crisis, when tasks are complex or poorly defined and when tasks have ideological
components which can be related to the organisation’s mission and shared vision. (Yukl,
1999) argues that more empirical research is required to identify the conditions which
promote charismatic leadership, which in turn would increase the predictive value of such
theories.

Ambiguity about the Implications for Organisational Effectiveness:

“Charismatic leadership implies a radical change in the strategy and culture of

the organisation, which may not be necessarily appropriate. When people give
substantial power to a leader with an appealing vision of a better future, the
power is often misused, [this is what some writers term the dark side of
charisma], while the vision remains an empty pipe dream. Polarisation of
organisational members into supporters and opponents can paralyse the
organisation with gridlock in the face of crisis requiring immediate action.
Charismatic leaders often fail to plan for a competent successor, resulting in a
new crisis when they depart.” (Yukl, 1999, p.298)

There has been little research to directly assess the practical implications of charismatic
leadership in organisations. According to Yukl (1999) even though proponents acknowledge
the ‘dark side’ of charisma, the theories would benefit from research leading to conceptual
and practical clarity in relation to the conditions under which charismatic leadership is
necessary or desirable.

Transformational & Charismatic Leadership Page 24

Summary

Transformational and charismatic leadership theories have dominated the leadership research
agenda in the 1980’s and 1990’s whilst they have undoubtedly provided a timely focus on the
role of the leader during times of change and the behaviours which may facilitate cultural
renewal and reinvention in an attempt to achieve competitive advantage within today’s
overcrowded, globalised markets. It is worth remembering that essentially they are
behavioural models, which suffer from many of conceptual and practical liabilities inherent
in earlier style approaches to leadership research such as; failure to adequately explain how
leadership behaviour leads to specific leadership outcomes that is a lack of consideration of
intervening variables and an implication that change can be achieved through the application
of transformational leadership behaviours alone. McHugh & Thomson (1995) cite Stogdill's
(1974) review of leadership research in arguing that:

"In view of the complexity of leadership behaviour and the variety of

situations in which it functions, a conditional and multivariate hypothesis
seems more reasonable than a simplistic, bipolar view of leader follower
relationship [which is a central tenet of style research" (Stogdill, 1974, p.407
in McHugh & Thomson, 1995, p.289)

References

Bass B M & Avolio B J, 1990, The implications of transactional and transformational

leadership for individual, team and organisational development, Research in organisational
change and development, 4, p.231-272

Bass B M & Avolio B J, 1993, Transformational leadership: A Response to critiques, In

Chemmers M M & R Ayman (Eds), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and
directions, p.49-98, San Diego, CA: Academic Press

Bass B M & Avolio B J, 1994, Improving Organisational Effectiveness through

Transformational Leadership, London: Sage Publications

Bass B M & Avolio B J, 1995, MFLQ Technical Report, Palo Alto, CA: MindGarden

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, Organisational Dynamics, 18, p.19-31

Transformational & Charismatic Leadership Page 25

Bass B M, 1990, Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research: New York: Free
Press

Bass B M, 1995, The revised MFLQ 5X, Palo Alto, CA: MindGarden

Bass B M, 1996, A new paradigm of leadership: an inquiry into transformational leadership,

Alexandria, VA: US Army Research Institute for the Behavioural and Social Sciences in
Yukl G, 1999, An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic
leadership theories, Leadership Quarterly, Summer 99, 10(2), p.285

Bass B M, 1997, Does the transactional-transformational paradigm transcend organisational

and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52, p.130-139

Bass B M, 1998, Transformational Leadership, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Bass B M, 1999, Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership,

European journal of work and organisational psychology, 8(1), p.9-32

Bennis W G & Nanus B, 1985, Leaders: The strategies for taking charge, New York: Harper
Row

Burns J M, 1978, Leadership, New York: Harper Row

Conger J A & Kanungo R, 1987, Towards a Behavioural Theory of Charismatic Leadership

in Organisational Settings, Academy of Management Review, 1987, Vol 12 No 4, p.637-647

Conger J A & Kanungo R, 1999, Charismatic Leadership in Organisations, Sage

Publications, London

Conger J A, 1989, The charismatic leader: Behind the mystique of exceptional leadership,
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Conger J A, 1999, Charismatic and transformational leadership in organisations: an insiders

perspective on these developing streams of research, Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), p.145-179

Den Hartog D N, Van Muijen J J & Koopman P L, 1997, Transactional versus

transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ, Journal of occupational and
organisational psychology, 70, p.19-34

House R J, 1976, A theory of charismatic leadership in Northouse P G, 2001, Leadership

Theory and Practice, Chapter 8, London: Sage Publications

House R J, 1977, A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership in Hunt J G & Larson L L (Eds),
Leadership the cutting edge, Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press in Yukl G,
1998, Leadership in organisations, New York: Prentice Hall

Hunt J G & Conger J A, 1999, Overview, Charismatic and transformational leadership:

Taking stock of the present and future (part II), Leadership Quarterly, 10(3), p.331-334

Hunt J G, 1991, Leadership: A New synthesis, London: Sage Publications

Transformational & Charismatic Leadership Page 26

Hunt J G, 1996 (2nd Ed), Leadership: A New synthesis, London: Sage Publications

Kouzes J & Posener B, 1987, The leadership challenge, San Francisco CA, Jossey Bass
publishers

Kouzes J & Posener B, 1988, Leadership Practices Inventory II, San Francisco CA, Jossey
Bass

Kouzes J & Posener B, 1997 (2nd Ed), The leadership challenge, San Francisco CA, Jossey
Bass publishers

Lievens F, Van Geit P & Coetsier P, 1997, Identification of transformational leadership

qualities: an examination of potential biases, European Journal of Work and Organisational
Psychology, 4, p.415-430

Lowe K B, Kroeck K G & Sivasubramaniam, 1996, Effective correlates of transformational

and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature, Leadership
Quarterly, 7, p.385-425

McHugh D & Thompson P, 1995, Work Organisations: A Critical Introduction, London:

Macmillan Business

McKenna E, 1994, Business Psychology and Organisational Behaviour: A Student’s

Handbook, Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

McKenna E, 2000 (3rd Ed), Business Psychology and Organisational Behaviour: A Student’s
Handbook, Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Northouse P G, 1997, Leadership - Theory and Practice, London: Sage Publications

Northouse P G, 2001, Leadership Theory and Practice (2nd Ed), London: Sage Publications

Pawar B S & Eastman K K, 1997, The nature and implications of contextual influences on
transformational leadership: A conceptual examination, Academy of management review, 22,
p.80-109

Podsakoff P M, MacKenzie S B & Bommer W H, 1996, Transformational leader behaviours

and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust
and organisational citizen behaviours, Journal of Management, 22, p.259-298

Porter L W & Bigley G A, 1997, Motivation and transformational leadership: Some

organisational context issues in Yukl G, 1999, An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in
transformational and charismatic leadership theories, Leadership Quarterly, Summer 99,
10(2), p.285

Shamir B & Howell J M, 1999, Organisational and contextual influences on the emergence
and effectiveness of charismatic leadership, Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), p.257-283

Transformational & Charismatic Leadership Page 27

Shamir B, 1991, The charismatic relationship: Alternative explanations and predictions,
Leadership Quarterly, 2, p.81-104

Shamir B, House R J & Arthur M B, 1993, The motivational effects of charismatic

leadership: A Self-concept theory, Organisational Science, 4, p.1-17 in Thomson P &
McHugh D, Work Organisations – A Critical Introduction, London: Macmillan

Stogdill R M, 1974, Handbook of leadership: a survey of literature, New York: Free Press

Tichy N M & Devanna M A, 1986, Transformational Leader, New York: Willey

Tichy N M & Devanna M A, 1990, Transformational Leader (2nd Ed), New York: Willey

Weber M, 1947, The theory of social and economic organisations in Northhouse P G, 1997,
Leadership - Theory and Practice, London: Sage Publications

Yammarino F J & Bass B M, 1990, Long-term forecasting of transformational leadership and

its effects amongst naval officers in Clark K E & Clark M B (Eds) Measures of leadership,
p.151-170, West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America in Yukl G, 1998, Leaders in
Organisations, NJ: Prentice Hall

Yammarino F J, Spangler W D & Bass B M, 1993, Transformational Leadership and

Performance: A longitudinal investigation, Leadership Quarterly, 4, p.81-102

Yukl G, 1998 (4th Ed), Leaders in Organisations, NJ: Prentice Hall

Yukl G, 1999, An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic

leadership theories, Leadership Quarterly, Summer 99, 10(2), p.285

Transformational & Charismatic Leadership Page 28